by Felix Quigley
May 19, 2009
I continue to look at the radio station “Radio Talk Europe” which broadcasts in Spain.
Yesterday, May 18, its chief “politico” Stephen Ritson made a reference to AIPAC as a “Trojan Horse”.
What this is usually taken to mean is that there are Jewish Americans who are loyal to Israel and are traitors to America. The obvious meaning also is that this AIPAC as part of the “Jewish Lobby” control the US foreign agenda.
This control is in particular towards the Middle Eastern US policy, and the added nuance is that Israel is oppressing the “Palestinians”.
Ritson has also made a reference to Hamas as a “Resistance”.
Also in yesterday´s programme on Ritson´s hour long show a Kate Hoey called for a one state solution. She means a state with an Arab majority. The implication is that Jews could be safe in that state.
A week ago we reported that a Howard Brereton had run a BBC report the essence of which was that Israel was driving Muslims and Christians out of Bethlehem (time of Pope visit)
To complete the picture a Barry Norman called for a Palestine state on the Ritson show. Norman calls himself pro Israel!!!
Ritson is extremely favourably disposed to a “Barbara”, an American who rings each week, and who has the same politics as the terrorist supporting ISM.
When I rang once Ritson was heckling me before I even got started. Why the difference in treatment Ritson!!!
And to top it all the station is owned and run by a Jewish man Maurice Boland.
As we reported Boland (on his folksy show) seemed to call an Arab called Saleem who has broken from the PLO a fake. We also reported on this.
WHERE THIS IS LOCATED IN TODAY´S EVENTS
The big issue at the moment is the position of the US towards Iran and the Iranian Bomb.
It is on that issue that there needs to start a discussion as to what is the essence of the Iranian regime. This can focus on the meaning of the various statements which Ahmadinejad has made towards Israel.
(Can we take it as certain that the Iranian Mullahs wish to make a Nuclear Bomb and that that is the reason for their enrichment process)
Let us examine the statement of Ahmadinejad. Actually he has made many but let us focus on the statement made at one specific conference
I turn to the entry in Wikipedia because those who are pro Iranian Mullah and anti Israel have a fair shout in this entry. I focus on that part which deals with the “World Without Zionism” meeting or conference where Ahmadinejad made that disputed call.
Inside this there is a Canadian reference to this call by Ahmadinejad and teh Canadians claim that Iranian translators of the highest calibre were sure that he as calling literally for wiping Israel off the map.
But before we go into this lengthy quote from Wikipedia which the reader may decide to skim or read quickly, please do not miss the context
THE SPEECH WAS MADE AT A “WORLD WITHOUT ZIONISM” CONFERENCE
I will return to the significance of that later
[begin Wikipedia extract on the disputed Ahmadinejad speech]
2005 “World Without Zionism” speech
On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, filed a story on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s recent speech to the “World Without Zionism” conference in Asia. The story was entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map. The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying:
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.
Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over “the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power”, and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as “acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.”
The speech also indicated that the Iranian President considered Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to be a trick, designed to gain acknowledgement from Islamic states. In a rally held two days later, Ahmadinejad declared that his words reflected the views of the Iranian people, adding that Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid.
 “Wiped off the map” or “Vanish from the pages of time” translation
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) statement that Ahmadinejad had demanded that “Israel must be wiped off the map”, an English idiom which means to “cause a place to stop existing”, or to “obliterate totally”, or “destroy completely”.
Ahmadinejad’s phrase was ” بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود ” according to the text published on the President’s Office’s website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.
According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad’s statement should be translated as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as “be eliminated from the pages of history.”
According to Cole, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ because no such idiom exists in Persian”. Instead, “He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”
On June 2, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.
Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. “Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned,” Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. “How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime,” he said.
Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada who presented a paper at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust conference in Iran, believes the text is a mistranslation.
Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—”wipe Israel off the map”—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can “wipe out” U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor and Israeli resident Ethan Bronner argued that Ahmadinejad had called for Israel to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner stated:
But translators in Tehran who work for the president’s office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than “vanish” because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Bronner continued: “..it is hard to argue that, from Israel’s point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran’s president call for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.” This elicited a further response from Jonathan Steele, who took issue with the use of the word “map” instead of the phrase “wipe out” and criticized this Wikipedia entry (as it was on June 14, 2006) for misrepresenting Ethan Bronner.
 Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad
President Ahmadinejad has been asked to explain his comments at subsequent press conferences. At a later news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted. “There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want.”
Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being “no need for any measures by the Iranian people”. Instead he claimed that “the Zionist regime” in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. “I assure you… there won’t be any war in the future,” both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.
And asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that “creating an objection against the Zionists doesn’t mean that there are objections against the Jewish”. He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country’s parliament.
In a September 2008 interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman on the radio and television program Democracy Now!, Ahmadinejad was asked: “If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?” and replied
If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay … Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it’s very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.
Interviewer Juan Gonzalez called the reply “a tiny opening”. Another observer however dubbed it an “astonishing” admission “that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel,” and a “softening” of Ahmadinejad’s “long-standing, point-blank anti-Israeli stance”. Australian-born British human rights activist Peter Tatchell also asked whether the statement reflected opportunism on Ahmadinejad’s part, or an openness by Iran “to options more moderate than his reported remarks about wiping the Israeli state off the map.”
 Interpretation of speech as call for genocide
The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. For example, Canada‘s then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, “this threat to Israel’s existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran’s obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore.”
In 2007, more than one hundred members of the United States House of Representatives co-sponsored a bill, “Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.”
Cole interprets the speech as a call for the end of Jewish rule of Israel, but not necessarily for the removal of Jewish people:
His statements were morally outrageous and historically ignorant, but he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the “occupation regime” in Gaza “vanish” last summer [sic]) or for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews to Europe.
However, the Iranian government IRIB News in English published a story reporting on the Ahmadinejad speech on ‘Qods Day’ on Oct 5 2007, stating that the president ‘repeated an earlier suggestion to Europe on settlement of the Zionists in Europe or big lands such as Canada and Alaska so they would be able to own their own land.’
Gawdat Bahgat, Director of Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, commenting on this saying of Ahmadinejad and Iran’s nuclear program states: “The fiery calls to destroy Israel are meant to mobilize domestic and regional constituencies. Iran has no plan to attack Israel with its nuclear arsenal and powerful conventional military capabilities. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni summed up his country’s stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict by stressing, ‘[The] Palestine issue is not Iran’s jihad.'” In fact, Bahgat says that according to most analysts a military confrontation between Iran and Israel is unlikely.
In the speech, Ahmadinejad gave the examples of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein‘s regime in Iraq as examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist. Ahmadinejad used these examples to justify his belief that the United States and the State of Israel can also be defeated claiming, “they say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan.”
In April 2006, Iran’s ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad’s position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?
SOLTANIEH: I think I’ve already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no. But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.
[end of lengthy extract from Wikipedia on interpretations of Ahmadinejad speech]
The above is taken from the Wikipedia entry under the url
THERE IS A REFERENCE IN THE ABOVE TO A MAN CALLED COLE, AND FOLLOWING THE LINK
Cole is a strong critic of Israel‘s foreign and military policy and its treatment of Palestinians. He criticizes the nature of America’s support for Israel and the activities of the “Israel Lobby”, and claims that some senior US officials such as Doug Feith have dual loyalties to America and the Israeli Likud Party.
Remember that we said that we would not forget that the Ahmadinejad disputed comment was made at a “World without Zionism” conference.
SO LET US ASK JUST EXACTLY WHAT IS ZIONISM?
As an Irish person let me say that Zionism is Jewish nationalism, it is the wish of the Jews to have a Homeland which they can call their own.
Well the Irish have this. So why not the Jewish people as well!
Or is the world going to deny the right of the Jewish people to have a Homeland?
So let us call that sentiment by its very precise and proper name. To do that is indeed the action of an antisemitic person.
So the conference in total “World without Zionism” was indeed antisemitic.
Now that is the essence of the position of the Iranian Mullah Government as expressed by its President Ahmadinejad.
PLEASE LOOK AT THIS WIKIPEDI ENTRY AND YOU WILL FIND THAT AHMADINEJAD HAS MADE ABOUT 20 MAJOR AND SIMILAR SPEECHES ON ISRAEL, THE JES, THE HOLOCAUST ETC. THE MAN IS CLEARLY OBSESSED BY THIS ISSUE IS HE NOT!
So then have we established that the Iranian Mullah regime is based on antisemitism. If so what must be the action of the Jews of Israel if they have got knowledge that these antisemites are producing Nuclear Bomb capability.
That is the question which has to be addressed by these people, in no particular order
2. Barry Norman
3. Ritson, who seems to have a hatred for Israel
4. Hoey, who wants the Jewish state ended
5. Boland, the Jewish owner of that radio station, who hosts all of these people, and who condemns asa fake an Arab who opposes the PLO
And of course many others.
We do live in interesting, and if you are Jewish, very dangerous times.