It was apparently some Western wire service that mistranslated the phrase as 'wipe Israel off the map', which sounds rather more violent than calling for regime change. Since then, Iranian media working in English have themselves depended on that translation. One of the tricks of Right-Zionist propagandists is to substitute these English texts for Ahmadinejad's own Persian text. (Ethan Bronner at the New York Times tried to pull this, and more recently Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute.) But good scholarship requires that you go to the original Persian text in search of the meaning of a phrase. Bronner and Rubin are guilty disregarding philological scholarship in favor of mere propagandizing.What an impressive point. The Ayatollah isn't the commander in chief of the armed forces either.
These propaganda efforts against Iran and Ahmadinejad also depend on declining to enter into evidence anything else he has ever said-- like that it would be wrong to kill Jews! They also ignore that Ahmadinejad is not even the commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces . . .
So here are some things Ahmadinezhad has said that make clear his intentions, and which are translated by the United States government Open Source Center. He is hostile to Israel. He'd like to see regime change (apparently via a referendum on the shape of the government ruling over geographical Palestine, in which all "original" residents of any religion would get a vote). Calling for a referendum on the dissolution of a government is not calling for genocide. Ahmadinejad also says he has no objection to a Jewish state in and of itself, he just thinks it should be located in, say, German territory set apart for the purpose, rather than displacing Palestinians from their homes. He may be saying unrealistic things; he is not advocating killing Jews qua Jews, or genocide.The one suggestion of a valid point that Cole has is that some of Ahmadinejad's utterances seem to leave open the possibility of submergence of the Jewish population of Israel in a Muslim majority or simply exile. Neither of those things is genocide per se, although either could have, chas veshalom, genocidal consequences. What, practically speaking, could lead to such eventualities other than a military defeat for Israel at the hands of militias and countries already armed by Iran and already mounting attacks? Loss of Jewish self-determination in the Middle East would clearly be horrifying.
Note that Ahmadinejad below denies being an anti-Semite (why deny it if he supposedly glories in it?); points out that he supports Jewish representation in the Iranian parliament; and compares his call for an end to the Zionist regime ruling over Jerusalem to the Western call for the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Was Ronald Reagan inciting to genocide when he called for an end of the Soviet regime?
Ahmadinejad's utterances towards Israel are certainly bellicose. His references to whatever demise he envisions for the Zionist Entity are often made in the context of praising the exploits of Hizbullah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. EOZ points out the absurd ease with which Cole dismisses the use of the "wiped off the map" translation by news agencies such as IRNA and IRIB. Cole cautions us against ignoring the conclusions of philologists, but the conclusions of native Persian speakers also carry some weight.
We just observed that Ahmadinejad's pronouncements at least imply a change in the balance of power resulting from a nuclear Iran. What does that mean in regards to Ahmadinejad's references to Israel's destruction? It certainly means that Iran, safely hiding behind its nukes, could more openly and extensively arm the enemies of the Big and Little Satan. And then there is the possibility of Iran's giving nuclear weapons to terrorists.
Did Ahmadinejad actually state somewhere that he would fire the first nuclear missile that came into his possession at the Fake Regime? Maybe not, but the apocalyptic streak in his thinking is not reassuring.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad
No comments:
Post a Comment