[News] Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Mon Aug 28 15:27:57 EDT 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/
August 28, 2006
Is Iran's President Really a Jew-hating,
Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has
threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"?
Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth
By VIRGINIA TILLEY
Johannesburg, South Africa
In this frightening mess in the Middle East,
let's get one thing straight. Iran is not
threatening Israel with destruction. Iran's
president has not threatened any action against
Israel. Over and over, we hear that Iran is
clearly "committed to annihilating Israel"
because the "mad" or "reckless" or "hard-line"
President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened
to destroy Israel But every supposed quote, every
supposed instance of his doing so, is wrong.
The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped
off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his
October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used
the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According
to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even
right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually
said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem
must vanish from the page of time."
What did he mean? In this speech to an annual
anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was
being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing
Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a
period when Israel was actually selling arms to
Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so
ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded
his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet
Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed
enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first
two had vanished almost beyond recall and the
third now languished in prison. So, too, the
"occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be
gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass."
But what about his other "threats" against
Israel? The blathersphere made great hay from his
supposed comment later in the same speech, "There
is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in
Palestine will erase the stigma in [the]
countenance of the Islamic world." "Stigma" was
interpreted as "Israel" and "wave of assaults"
was ominous. But what he actually said was, "I
have no doubt that the new movement taking place
in our dear Palestine is a wave of morality which
is spanning the entire Islamic world and which
will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the
Islamic world." "Wave of morality" is not "wave
of assaults." The preceding sentence had made
clear that the "stain of disgrace" was the Muslim
world's failure to eliminate the "occupying regime".
For months, scholars like Cole and journalists
like the London Guardian's Jonathan Steele have
been pointing out these mistranslations while
more and more appear: for example, Mr.
Ahmadinejad's comments at the Organization of
Islamic Countries meeting on August 3, 2006.
Radio Free Europe reported that he said "that the
'main cure' for crisis in the Middle East is the
elimination of Israel." "Elimination of Israel"
implies physical destruction: bombs, strafing,
terror, throwing Jews into the sea. Tony Blair
denounced the translated statement as ""quite
shocking". But Mr. Ahmadinejad never said this.
According to al-Jazeera, what he actually said
was "The real cure for the conflict is the
elimination of the Zionist regime, but there
should be an immediate ceasefire first."
Nefarious agendas are evident in consistently
translating "eliminating the occupation regime"
as "destruction of Israel". "Regime" refers to
governance, not populations or cities. "Zionist
regime" is the government of Israel and its
system of laws, which have annexed Palestinian
land and hold millions of Palestinians under
military occupation. Many mainstream human rights
activists believe that Israel's "regime" must
indeed be transformed, although they disagree
how. Some hope that Israel can be redeemed by a
change of philosophy and government (regime) that
would allow a two-state solution. Others believe
that Jewish statehood itself is inherently
unjust, as it embeds racist principles into state
governance, and call for its transformation into
a secular democracy (change of regime). None of
these ideas about regime change signifies the
expulsion of Jews into the sea or the ravaging of
their towns and cities. All signify profound
political change, necessary to creating a just peace.
Mr. Ahmadinejad made other statements at the
Organization of Islamic Countries that clearly
indicated his understanding that Israel must be
treated within the framework of international
law. For instance, he recognized the reality of
present borders when he said that "any aggressor
should go back to the Lebanese international
border". He recognized the authority of Israel
and the role of diplomacy in observing, "The
circumstances should be prepared for the return
of the refugees and displaced people, and
prisoners should be exchanged." He also called
for a boycott: "We also propose that the Islamic
nations immediately cut all their overt and
covert political and economic relations with the
Zionist regime." A double bushel of major Jewish
peace groups, US church groups, and hordes of
human rights organizations have said the same things.
A final word is due about Mr. Ahmadinejad's
"Holocaust denial". Holocaust denial is a very
sensitive issue in the West, where it notoriously
serves anti-Semitism. Elsewhere in the world,
however, fogginess about the Holocaust traces
more to a sheer lack of information. One might
think there is plenty of information about the
Holocaust worldwide, but this is a mistake. (Lest
we be snooty, Americans show the same startling
insularity from general knowledge when, for
example, they live to late adulthood still not
grasping that US forces killed at least two
million Vietnamese and believing that anyone who
says so is anti-American. Most French people have
not yet accepted that their army slaughtered a million Arabs in Algeria.)
Skepticism about the Holocaust narrative has
started to take hold in the Middle East not
because people hate Jews but because that
narrative is deployed to argue that Israel has a
right to "defend itself" by attacking every
country in its vicinity. Middle East publics are
so used to western canards legitimizing colonial
or imperial takeovers that some wonder if the
six-million-dead argument is just another myth or
exaggerated tale. It is dismal that Mr.
Ahmadinejad seems to belong to this ill-educated
sector, but he has never been known for his higher education.
Still, Mr. Ahmadinejad did not say what the US
Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy reported that
he said: "They have invented a myth that Jews
were massacred and place this above God,
religions and the prophets." He actually said,
"In the name of the Holocaust they have created a
myth and regard it to be worthier than God,
religion and the prophets." This language targets
the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust
itself - i.e., "myth" as "mystique", or what has
been done with the Holocaust. Other writers,
including important Jewish theologians, have
criticized the "cult" or "ghost" of the Holocaust
without denying that it happened. In any case,
Mr. Ahmadinejad's main message has been that, if
the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did,
then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it.
Why is Mr. Ahmadinejad being so systematically
misquoted and demonized? Need we ask? If the
world believes that Iran is preparing to attack
Israel, then the US or Israel can claim
justification in attacking Iran first. On that
agenda, the disinformation campaign about Mr.
Ahmadinejad's statements has been bonded at the
hip to a second set of lies: promoting Iran's
(nonexistent) nuclear weapon programme.
The current fuss about Iran's nuclear enrichment
program is playing out so identically to US
canards about Iraq's WMD that we must wonder why
it is not meeting only roaring international
derision. With multiple agendas regarding Iran --
oil, US hegemony, Israel, neocon fantasies of a
"new Middle East" -- the Bush administration has
raised a great international scare about Iran's
nuclear enrichment program. (See Ray Close, Why
Bush Will Choose War Against Iran.) But, plowing
through Iran's facilities and records,
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors
have found no evidence of a weapons program. The
US intelligence community hasn't found anything, either.
All experts concur that, even if Iran has such a
program, it is five to ten years away from having
the enriched uranium necessary for an actual
weapon, so pre-emptive military action now is
hardly necessary. Even the recent report by the
Republican-dominated Subcommittee on Intelligence
Policy, which pointed out that the US government
lacks the intelligence on Iran's weapons program
necessary to thwart it, effectively confirms that
the supposed "intelligence" is patchy and inadequate.
The Bush administration's casual neglect of North
Korea's nuclear program indicates that nuclear
weapons are not, in fact, the issue here. The
neocons are intent on changing the regime in Iran
and so have deployed their propagandists to
promote the "nuclear weapons" scare just they
promoted the Iraqi WMD scare. Republican rhetoric
and right-wing news commentators have fallen into
line, obediently repeating baseless assertions
that Iran has a "nuclear weapons program," is
threatening the world and especially Israel with
its "nuclear weapons program," and must not be
allowed to complete its "nuclear weapons
program." Those who nervously point out that hard
evidence is actually lacking about any Iranian
"nuclear weapons program" are derided as naïve and spineless patsies.
Worse, the Bush administration has brought this
snow-job to the UN, wrangling the Security
Council into passing a resolution (SC 1696)
demanding that Iran cease nuclear enrichment by
August 31 and warning of sanctions if it doesn't.
Combined with its abysmal performance regarding
Israel's assault on Lebanon, the Security Council
has crumbled into humiliating obsequious incompetence on this one.
Like all phantasms, the nuclear-weapons charge is
hard to defeat because it cannot be entirely
disproved. Maybe some Iranian scientists, in some
remote underground facility, are working on
nuclear weapons technology. Maybe feelers to
North Korea have explored the possibilities of
getting extra components. Maybe an alien
spaceship once crashed in the Nevada desert.
Normally, just because something can't be
disproved does not make it true. But in the
neocon world, possibilities are realities, and a
craven press is there to click its heels and
trumpet the scaremongering headlines. It doesn't
take much, through endless repetition of the term
"possible nuclear weapons program," for the word
"possible" to drop quietly away.
Evidence is, in any case, a mere detail to the
Bush administration, for which the desire for
nuclear weapons is sufficient cause for a
pre-emptive attack. In US debates prior to
invading Iraq, people sometimes insisted that any
real evidence of WMD was sorely lacking. The
White House would then insist that, because
Saddam Hussein "wanted" such weapons, he was
likely to have them sometime in the future. Hence
thought crimes, even imaginary thought crimes,
are now punishable by military invasion.
Will the US really attack Iran? US generals are
rightly alarmed that bombing Iran's nuclear
facilities would unleash unprecedented attacks on
US occupation forces in Iraq, as well as US bases
in the Gulf. Iran could even block the Straits of
Hormuz, which carries 40 percent of the world's
oil. Spin-off terrorist militancy would
skyrocket. The potential damage to international
security and the world economy would be
unfathomably dangerous. The Bush administration's
necons seems capable of any insanity, so none of
this may matter to them. But even the neocons
must be taking pause since Israel failed to knock
out Hizbullah using the same onslaught from the air planned for Iran.
But Israel can attack Iran, and this may be the
plan. Teaming up, the two countries could
compensate for each other's strategic
limitations. The US has been contributing its
superpower clout in the Security Council, setting
the stage for sanctions, knowing Iran will not
yield on its enrichment program. Having
cultivated a (mistaken) international belief that
Iran is threatening a direct attack on Israel,
the Israeli government could then claim the right
of self-defense in taking unilateral pre-emptive
action to destroy the nuclear capacity of a state
declared in breach of UN directives. Direct
retaliation by Iran against Israel is impossible
because Israel is a nuclear power (and Iran is
not) and because the US security umbrella would
protect Israel. Regional reaction against US
targets might be curtailed by the (scant)
confusion about indirect US complicity.
In that case, what we are seeing now is the US
creating the international security context for
Israel's unilateral strike and preparing to cover
Israel's back in the aftermath.
Is this really the plan? Some evidence suggests
that it is on the table. In recent years, Israel
has purchased new "bunker-busting" missiles, a
fleet of F-16 jets, and three latest-technology
German Dolphin submarines (and ordered two more)-
i.e., the appropriate weaponry for striking
Iran's nuclear installations. In March 2005, the
Times of London reported that Israel had
constructed a mock-up of Iran's Natanz facility
in the desert and was conducting practice bombing
runs. In recent months, Israeli officials have
openly stated that if the UN fails to take action, Israel will bomb Iran.
But Hizbullah, Iran's ally, still threatens
Israel's flank. Hence attacking Hizbullah was
more than a "demo" for attacking Iran, as Seymour
Hersh reported; it was necessary to attacking
Iran. Israel failed to crush Hizbullah, but the
outcome may be better for Israel now that
Security Council Resolution 1701 has made the
entire international community responsible for
disarming Hizbullah. If the US-sponsored 1701
effort succeeds, the attack on Iran is a go.
As Israel and the US try to make that deeply
flawed plan work, we will doubtless continue to
read in every forum that Iran's president - a
hostile, irrational, Jew-hating,
Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has
threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" -- is
demonstrably irrational enough to commit national
suicide by launching a (nonexistent) nuclear
weapon against Israel's mighty nuclear arsenal.
The message is being hammered home: against this
media-created myth, Israel must truly "defend itself."
Virginia Tilley is a professor of political
science, a US citizen working in South Africa,
and author of
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0472115138/counterpunchmaga>The
One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in
the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock (University of
Michigan Press and Manchester University Press,
2005). She can be reached at <mailto:tilley at hws.edu>tilley at hws.edu.
The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20060828/2a124983/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list