I hope that the following addresses the concern that you have that your points are not being systematically addressed.
Please read the article in the following link completely and objectively. You might be surprised about what you know.
Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?
Next, check this site for the known unknowns about Israel's nukes.
Strategic Israel-The Arsenal of an Undeclared Nuclear Power
Then search the net for quotes from Israeli leaders over the last 7 decades concerning the rights of Palestinians on what Israel regards as its land. Here is one of David's, but you can search for some of Golda's that are just as reprehensible, or Ariel's or even Yitshak's.
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
Regarding your last statement. You quoted a highly disputed quote allegedly made by Ben Gurion. I am sure that you can go to anti-Jewish websites and find more alleged quotes from other Israeli leaders that are either taken out of context or just fabricated.
There is a longer history of Jews in the Middle East before Israel including earlier in the 20th century.
But if you are speaking about former Jewish leaders and alleged quotes or misquotes I would be very careful about their characterization.
Now, if we can attract more attention to the substantive dispute of the Cole-Hitchens fight, we will also call attention to the fact that translations are tricky business. And those with political agendas can selectively choose translations to obscure the big picture and manipulate the media.
The precise reason for Hitchens' theft and publication of my private mail is that I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people. But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
It is a shame that nobody had pointed this out before Juan Cole. Cole's translation of the persian passage is indeed much closer to the target. I re-red the persian and Cole is right. It is still a threat, don't get me wrong. There is a quasi-hegelian ring to the original, as something that will occur as history unfolds. Not a nice thing to say (or hope for) but not as awful as the bad English translation made it sound. by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 07:45:25 PM BST
It is still a threat, don't get me wrong. There is a quasi-hegelian ring to the original, as something that will occur as history unfolds. Not a nice thing to say (or hope for) but not as awful as the bad English translation made it sound.
by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 07:45:25 PM BST
Also, why doesn't anyone points to the fact that the Iranian president would hardly be the one with the finger on the big red nuclear switch if Iran got the bomb ? The President currently hardly is the most powerful person in Iran... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
That is right. He is more or less a figure head and mouthpiece for the mullahs.
Apparently Ahmadinejad did not say Israel will be wiped off the map and Khrushchev did say "We will bury you . . ." Neither leader had enough internal support to do much damage. All part of the purpose of the U.N. so that countries could say what they want as long as they did not toss missiles.
Sounds similar to Khrushtchev's "We will bury you"...
The US installed a puppet government in Iran in 1953. It was this government that Khomeini was referring to...it was there, and it was gone. Iran didn't get wiped off the map. The regime was replaced.
And this is exactly what he predicts will happen with the regime in Jerusalem. Not that Israel will get wiped off the map, (there is no such slang term used in the language) but that there will be a regime change in Jerusalem.
I am getting the impression that the problems of the world are greatly exacerbated by people's expectations that they should be able to read every person's statements with the dictionary of a certain mental midget sitting in the White House.
Did anyone take "This is not a game" as a sig line yet? Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
I understand the intent of his message which is consistent with the political dialogue surrounding the Israeli-Palestinean issue.
I am of the belief that Ahmadinejad's very existence is a direct result of Bush's unilateral classification of Iran as an enemy soon after 9/11. He is serving a purpose for Iran which is to counter the rhetoric being thrown against it.
This started with the question of whether Iran represented a threat to the region. Of course they do but not any more than other of the Middle East countries. The central element of instability is Iraq and if a negotiated security agreement between certain countries can be worked out then it will serve to defuse most tensions.
The issue that still remains is nuclear weapons in Iran which the government has yet to admit to their development but is certainly progressing toward that. For what purpose would they need it?
leaving aside the idiotic "axis of evil" speech, and since I've started quoting STA, let's do it again:
The U. S. position is unclear, perhaps because of an internal struggle within the Bush administration between those who advocate trying to reach an accommodation with Iran led by Secretary of State Rice and the hawks led by Dick Cheney.Let me make a point that I cannot emphasize enough. The Iranian position is no more clear. What is missing from most articles about Iran is the general fracture that exists in the country. This is new; it is a first in modern Iran. As a country, it has usually had a real unity. The Iranian regime is no longer regimented! It is fractured for the first time in modern Iranian history. The difference between Afghanistan and Iran, or at least one of the differences, used to be that no governing body in Afghanistan could hold the country together. Hence warlords. In Iran, however poorly managed, the government in place -- Shah's or the current retards -- had a discernible political line. The infightings and backstabbings are pushing Iran into a new territory. I am not even talking about conservative vs. moderates [sic]. Even the conservatives can't agree on practically anything. Ahmadinejad is in place because they cannot deal with each other. The war talk helps create a semblance of unity where there is none. An attack against Iran would create unity, among the rulers, but perhaps even among the people. by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 04:39:18 PM BST
The U. S. position is unclear, perhaps because of an internal struggle within the Bush administration between those who advocate trying to reach an accommodation with Iran led by Secretary of State Rice and the hawks led by Dick Cheney.
What is missing from most articles about Iran is the general fracture that exists in the country. This is new; it is a first in modern Iran. As a country, it has usually had a real unity.
The Iranian regime is no longer regimented! It is fractured for the first time in modern Iranian history. The difference between Afghanistan and Iran, or at least one of the differences, used to be that no governing body in Afghanistan could hold the country together. Hence warlords.
In Iran, however poorly managed, the government in place -- Shah's or the current retards -- had a discernible political line.
The infightings and backstabbings are pushing Iran into a new territory. I am not even talking about conservative vs. moderates [sic]. Even the conservatives can't agree on practically anything. Ahmadinejad is in place because they cannot deal with each other.
The war talk helps create a semblance of unity where there is none. An attack against Iran would create unity, among the rulers, but perhaps even among the people.
by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 04:39:18 PM BST
