Skip to content or view screen version

The Sun, and the Lie of what Ahmadinejad never said

brian | 26.02.2007 06:23

The Sun has published a piece of crass journalism, by James Clench, in which he hysterically calls president Ahmadinejad a madman bent on genocide. yet the sole basis of his claim is the lie that has been spread by a media that is too lazy to do its own fact checking.,
So ive written them a strong letter, condemning the piece, and showing it is based on a lie.
I urge others to read my letter and write too to the Sun. James Clench is trying to do a Judith Miller. Its up to us to put a stop to the media spreading a lie that could lead to war.

Hello Sun

Ive just read your article by James Clench:
 http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007090302,00.html
dated feb 27 2007.

and the troubling claim is this:
'The madman, who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map,
ominously boasted that Iran has the technology to make
nuclear power.'

Madman? 'Omininously'? IS this really meant as A-grade
journalism?

This article contains some of the worst journalism ive
seen for some time. The hysterical language, the libel
and shrill name calling, but above all,the
'journalist' claims that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to
wipe israel off the face of the earth.
Well, Clench is a poor exccuse for a journalist, and
your paper is a sad reflection on journalism if it
cant do a bit of research. Here is what the iranian
president really said:


Why so recently as this is your paper continunig to
publish what is a brazen lie about what prsident
Ahmadienjad really said:

'"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az
safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." '

Can anyone on the Sun read this? Apparently not.
Iraninan Arash Norouzi can. Here is his analysis:



'THE ACTUAL QUOTE:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his
exact words in farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e
ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv
shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one
word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word
"Regime", pronounced just like the English word with
an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not
refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass,
but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant
distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map.
Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he
instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e
ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want
"wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's
because the word "map" was never used. The Persian
word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in
his original farsi quote, or, for that matter,
anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western
phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe
that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off
the map", despite never having uttered the words
"map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

THE PROOF:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must
vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e
(regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem)
bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time)
mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi,
archived on Ahmadinejad's web site
www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

THE SPEECH AND CONTEXT:

While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been
repeated infinitely without verification,
Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost
entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the
"map" comment, it would be sensible to present his
words in their full context to get a fuller
understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at
the entire speech, there is a clear, logical
trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without
Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but
critical appraisals are infeasible without first
knowing what that reasoning is.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is
the West's apparatus of political oppression against
Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on
the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure
domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he
insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's
struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will
have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's
powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem
unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that,
as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible
empires have disappeared and now only exist in history
books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes
that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within
the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch

(2) The Soviet Union

(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces
their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling
that individual regime's demise. He concludes by
referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam
said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from
the page of time. This statement is very wise". This
is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and
distorted so famously. By measure of comparison,
Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime
change, not war.

etc
 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16218.htm

====================
So we now know that President Ahmadinejad never said
'wipe israel off the face of the map'. So why are you
at this late date, when all this has been available on
the internet, or why couldnt you hire a decent farsi
translator? Does your paper really hate Iranians so
much they are prepared to back another US war? This
lie like the lie of Saddams WMDs is being fed to the
non-Farsi speaking public to get their backing for
war.
During the Nuremberg trials, german newspaper
publishers who backed the nazis were also tried and
executed for their part in fomenting war. Do you want
to suffer the same fate?

Here is what your irresponsible non-journalism is
leading us to:
 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022507B.shtml


regards


Brian Souter
Canberra Australia

brian

Comments

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Ahmadinejad indeed made such a threat

26.02.2007 12:23

Ahmadinejad has indeed threatened to destroy Israel. Here is what the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) had to say about the matter:

"If Mr. Steele and Mr. Cole are right, not one word of the quotation — Israel should be wiped off the map — is accurate.

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 Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), 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."



ank


with typical ...

26.02.2007 18:00

... hypocracy and half truths, ank presets his case.

Only, for those who have read the NYT piece, his conclusions are tantamount to repeating a lie.

In the fullness of the piece, the experts quoted by ank not only refute the explicit use of the phrase 'wipe off' 'isreal' and 'map', but go on to demonstrate only that their are mulitple possible INTERPRETATIONS of the exact Farsi words used that MAY hold the meanings desparately sought by war mongers nd zionists alike.

To jump to the hard conclusion that the words put into his mouth by the corporate lackies of the war mongering and zionist shrills is dshonest to say the least.

I recomend all to read carefully the piece cited by ank AND 1 other piece of their choosing from a reputable Persian/Farsi source and see if they come to anks conclusions (which are ideological in origin - which is to say pre-conceived).

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Choose your source

26.02.2007 18:19

It doesn't help that the link given by 'ank' doesn't back up the claim.

Google this [israel map site:www.president.ir/eng/ ]

and from the results only one talks of wiping "Israel off the map" - and that is "Excerpts of TIME's interview with Iranian president "
 http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/06/27/#b4

here's the exchange:

"TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

Ahmadinejad: People in the world are free to think the way they wish. We do not insist they should change their views. Our position toward the Palestinian question is clear: We say that a nation has been displaced from its own land. Palestinian people are killed in their own lands, by those who are not original inhabitants, and they have come from far areas of the world and have occupied those homes. Our suggestion is that the five million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people of those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way. Do you have any other suggestions?

TIME: Do you believe the Jewish people have a right to their own state?

Ahmadinejad: We do not oppose it. In any country in which the people are ready to vote for the Jews to come to power, it is up to them. In our country, the Jews are living and they are represented in our Parliament. But Zionists are different from Jews."

Finkelstein carries an article by Patrick Connor of Arab Media Watch/ISM who clearly isn't an enormous fan of Ethan Bronner, nor the 'august organ' which he writes for:

"In the January 7, 2007 Sunday Book Review, after the dust settled from weeks of frenzied coverage by other major media outlets, the Times made its bid to pronounce the "final word" on Carter's book. In the review Jews, Arabs and Jimmy Carter,[1] Times Deputy Foreign Editor Ethan Bronner rejected the more hysterical claims that Carter is anti-Semitic, but simultaneously dismissed Carter's book as "strange" and "a distortion," and described Carter, the only US President to have successfully mediated an Arab-Israeli peace agreement, as suffering from "tone deafness about Israel and Jews".

If Carter is "tone deaf," Bronner's review provides yet more evidence that The New York Times is willfully blind to Palestinians. New research detailed below shows that Times' news reports from Israel/Palestine, which Bronner supervises, privilege the Israeli narrative of terrorism, while marginalizing the Palestinian narratives of occupation and denial of rights. Bronner himself has quoted eight times more words from Israelis than from Palestinians in 18 articles he wrote for the Times since mid-2000.

The Times paved the way for Bronner's review with two news articles[2] and a blog posting.[3] While allowing Carter space to defend himself, the articles and blog posting focused on attacks on Carter by eight public figures, and included defenses by just two people. As usual, no Palestinians were permitted to comment. The Times' blog posting noted that the controversy was unfolding during a holocaust denial conference in Iran , hinting at an unspecified link with Carter's book."

Also

"In 2003, Bronner wrote a glowing review of The Case for Israel by pro-Israel hatchetman Alan Dershowitz.[8] Assessing Dershowitz's book, alongside a book by Yaacov Lozowick, Bronner called them "intelligent polemics." He offered not a single criticism of Dershowitz, saying his book made many "well-argued points," and Dershowitz "knows how to construct an argument." He described Dershowitz as a "liberal" "on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict." In contrast, Professor Norman Finkelstein devoted an entire book, Beyond Chutzpah, to documenting the errors, fabrications and outright plagiarism in The Case for Israel. "Liberal" Dershowitz defends torture, and suggested Israel destroy entire Palestinian villages in retaliation for suicide bombings."

Source:  http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=800

ank only ever seems to comment on Israel and the slant is always fiercely pro-Israel.

The article he quotes is on almost every Hasbarah website.





Jimmy Carter's Plantation Manager


...

26.02.2007 18:41

I actually like that New York Times article, because it confirms what the first poster said, that 'Wipe Israel off the map" is not exactly what he said. In typical New York Times style, it basically being the mouthpiece for the Bush administration, it then tries to spin it in such a way that what he said COULD BE INTERPRETED as wipe Israel off the map. BUT THAT IS ALL IT IS. AN INTERPRETATION. It could just as easily be that 'the Zionist regime should be wiped from the page of history' ( the problem isn't the word 'wipe', it's the words Israel and Map that have such belligerent connotations ).
The media have been throwing around this phrase as though it is the truth, while in fact it is only a useful interpretation for those who want to embroil us in yet more shit to find some excuse to bomb Iran.

Hermes


Israel, US Fascists Continue To Plot

26.02.2007 21:07

"Ahmadinejad has indeed threatened to destroy Israel. Here is what the New York Times"

No, "ank", he didn't. The NY Times carried the original mistranslation of what was actually a very rational argument. This is where these LIES originated. The NYT has since retracted the piece (unlike the bulk of the tightly-controlled US media, which perpetuates this LIE today), and apologized for the mistake.

So, no "wiped off the map" quote. That was a mistranslation, whose perpetuation amounts to a LIE.

No nuclear weapons program. Those claims, by the people plotting to attack Iran - possibly with nuclear weapons - were LIES, refuted by today's IAEA report.

No "defiance of the UN". Instead of further Appeasing of Israel and the US, who demanded harsher measures, the UN yesterday announced it was investigating reports of US/Israeli coercion against member states, which led to the original Resolution, the creation of this "crisis".

No 'yellow armbands for Jews' in Iran. This was a miliscious LIE created by Zionists, and fed through their newspapers in the West. Iran actually hosts the ME's largest Jewish community outside of Israel, and these Jews just rejected a call by Israel for them to emmigrate to Palestine. No doubt this earned them the 'self-hating' slur, and possibly made them a target of Israel's attack.

So, just why are Fascist Extremists in the US and Israel plotting war against Iran ... ?

Stop The Aggression


No he did not Ank: more lies by expats

27.02.2007 05:33

'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 Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), 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'
===========================================


OK,lets take a look at those translators: Here is what i find on Sohrab Mahdavi:

'Sohrab Mahdavi, born in Teheran, where he grew up, left the city after the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and spent the next eleven years in exile in the USA. He is cofounder and chief editor of the bilingual internet forum »TeheranAvenue« and one of Iran’s most prominent translators.'
 http://www.literaturfestival.com/bios1_3_6_1202.html

So if this is really YOUR Sohrab, then he is clearly an enemy of the current govt and of Ahmadinejad, and so just the sort of person who would like to wage war against Iran to foment regime change. So he cant be trusted to tell the truth any more than Chalabi.
But thanks for alerting me to this scumbag.

Siamak Namazi is not a translator at all, but another expat who works as an 'economic policy and analyst'...what ever that means. But he also has been associated with the Wilon Center, whos director: Lee Herbert Hamilton (born April 20, 1931) was the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, and currently serves on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council
 http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Woodrow_Wilson_Center

Not the most reassuring pedigree!

Always check the bcakgrounds of such people.

It was the translators in Tehran who first spread this vicious rumor....
But Cole and Norouzi and others say they are lying. Now why would they make such an open lie? Is that because theyu are seeking regime change?

Brian


why are u trying to protect an evil man

27.02.2007 21:55

i thought this website was for anarchists? when does an anarchist support or try to protect a right wing reactionary who is trying to develop power through nuclear reactors, which i thought imc is against anywhere, wheather he is trying to make nuclear bombs is not the point. no one should have nuclear bombs or nuclear powerstations! i am sick of all you people claiming my enemys enemy is my friend! its just ridiculus that u are sticking up for a man who i have no doubt is a homophobe and a right winger. just quit it!

(A) in the uk


"why are u trying to protect an evil man"

27.02.2007 23:13

Oh dear - oh dear - oh dear.

So, why don't we just sit back and watch ordinary Iranians get killed, while their killers tell us lies which we dare not refute cos some (A) in the UK will accuse us of protecting the man?

Not one person on this has expressed an opinion about Ahmadinejad - the discussion is actually about the veracity of ank's source.

"no one should have nuclear bombs or nuclear powerstations!"

Bit fucking late if you ask me.

The same ones who are whipping up the hysteria about Ahmadinejad, are the ones with the nukes.

They're also the ones planning to use them.



Ahmadinejad's best buddy


Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments