If you speak Farsi, don't read this
"From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair" William Blum.
The by now familiar pattern is to mount a massive negative propaganda attack on the leader of any such “prey”, as happened with Manuel Noriega, Mulla Omar and Saddam Hussein. Once the leader is sufficiently demonized and vilified, any illegal action is rendered justified. An armada is being assembled in the Persian Gulf, and now in the Mediterranean. The indications, therefore, are that before leaving in November, G and D will make sure that Iran is attacked, because, as Alexander Cockburn said: "A 'just war' is hospitable to every self-deception on the part of those waging it, none more than the certainty of virtue, under whose shelter every abomination can be committed with a clear conscience." Without a doubt Mr Harper will be cheering with his war drums banging all the way to Washington.
So, what should we peace loving Greens do? That is up to our leaders, but also to each and every one of us individually, because the Party belongs to all of us, and the search for peace should be the duty of every one. Mine is to debunk part of the excuse for this impending war BEFORE it happens. This information is on the web of course, but how many greens have actually read it carefully.
So, what did President Ahmedinejad actually say? We have been systematically led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map". Right? Wrong!
Here is the 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).
The words inside the brackets say: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time", which is something that has been said by others, including Israelis themselves. Note the similarity between ‘regime’ and ‘rezhim-e’ in Farsi. In Farsi and Hindi, the verb often comes at the end of the sentence. And that is another reason why the GPC should have on board people like our new candidate for Ottawa Vanier, Akbar Manoussi, and others, to help us avoid these pitfalls in our foreign policy.
Can you see the words: ‘wipe’ or ‘Israel’, or ‘map’ anywhere?
If not, then I trust that I have helped clear up a misconception.
(4)
- Qais Ghanem's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Yes, we must "rectify names"
Confucius said that it is very important to chose our words wisely. In fact, he felt that the "rectification of names" was a key part of proper governance. The wisdom of this policy is shown by the above example where a group with a political agenda has conflated the removal of a particular government with a nation and its people. This is exactly the same ploy that the Conservatives use when they deliberately confuse opposition to George Bush with "anti-Americanism". It is also the same thing as when people use the word "terrorism" to conflate a wide variety of totally disparate things. Lest people get too hung up, I would remind people that several times I have been tarred with the brush of being a "terrorist" because of my work on behalf of the Green Party.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
off again, Bill
There is no conflation. Khomeini is referred to, & he means a Jewish regime on what he considers Islamic territory. I didn't even bother reading the rest of your short paragraph, as I want to avoid that "deep end", again.
some other quotes
Anyone attentive to the drum-beaters' manipulations knows about this adventurous translation they spread about. But it is surprising that a Green rests merely satisfied with this kind of clearing up of misconception. It is true that the President of Iran's words were more subtle than, say, what his American counterpart's capabilities could provide, in that they refer to words not his own, and they do imply passivity, as in letting something disappear without violent effort. But how could a Green not "in the same breath" express at a minimum displeasure that, eg, a UN member country speaks in such a fashion about a fellow UN member? And this is not to mention the ominous religious undertone. Perhaps our clearer of misconceptions would find interesting something I was moved to write a few years ago on a much publicized missive from the same President (I am quite familiar with Blum's work):
(from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/letters_29.html)
So we see that it is not only for a generation raised on TV and fast food, as in the US, to have such a minimalist attention span as that demonstrated in the Iranian president's renowned letter to the US president (Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush, May 11), at least regarding the UN and Israel. A great many of us are aghast at the prospect of punishment meted out by the US, even if due, the very people in no small part responsible for the unfortunate developments in Iran, the latter subject to tripping up and worse by the nation of the addressee at formative stages in Iran's fledgling attempts at the difficult national adaptation to means and livelihoods of these violent past decades. It is also a frightening prospect for ardent and heartfelt supporters of Israel through its confrontations at least as dire all these decades as for Iran, suffering as both have for indecent interventions by those with no real concern for the care of human beings [who] might be affected by dangerous and wayward foreign policy, that Israel have its near-term fate so depend on intrinsic American ineptitude, however much earnest good intent goes along with the danger and waywardness. For the US, for its impossibly sized polity built upon fundamental disparagement both of intellectuality and of policy rumination if it seems indecisive, can almost do no good except for wrong reasons, and only do badly when reasons seem right. Iran has assumed a posture of ominous stiffness in adjoining ever-embattled Israel as hostage to its grievance, the letter's narrative evincing no admission of terribly self-defeating behavior in international terms of Israel's antagonists, setting the stage for Israel's own damagingly wasteful necessity in maintaining an armed stiffness of its own. The god of Muslims and Jews knows what better Iran and Israel could to do together as they bracket a region in so many ways impoverished, if only Iran's leadership would take another tack, at least toward Israel, even as they [Iranians] request the same of the US. Is it impossible for Iran's highest representatives to demonstrate some mnemonic responsibility toward Israel's story of suffering even as they publicly rehearse [memories] of their own? It should not take long for Israel to respond with warmth and creativity to great eventual practical benefit, all desperately required in the close regional cooperation that should trump nearly all else in efforts at far less violent means and livelihoods.
D Vernon
Toronto, Ontario (May 11, '06)
Or, around the same time, on certain ominous religiosity (from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/letters_25.html):
Kaveh L Afrasiabi (The Iran-Israel misconception [Jan 25]) does well to emphasize the role of misperception among would-be belligerents, but does less well in selective appeal to an Iranian historical role regarding Jewish people. Centuries post-Cyrus, thus that much nearer to us, there is record of significant religious-based Iranian persecution of Jewish people. To this day, most celebrants of the traditional Jewish eight-day light-kindling period, Hanuka, retreat from the originally prescribed fully public display of lights to the semi-public, this revision of ritual originally a protective response to Iranian religious zealotry and persecution, albeit pre-Islamic. This too "forms an irrefutable dimension of Iran's outward outlook". The actual specific threat long passed, the enduring restricted public illumination attests less to overly keen Jewish sensitivity than to religious symbolic assimilation of the ongoing stifling of beneficial self-expression in so many avenues. One should not want to foster yet more misperceptions, as in the all too common erroneous declarations of how free of persecution and threat Jewish people have historically been in and around Islamic lands as well, not only Zoroastrian.
D Vernon
Canada (Jan 25, '06)
While statements from the Green Party of Iran betray serious aggrievement for having been domestically suppressed, and are thus to be only carefully used as evidence, given that party's obvious many similarities with other Greens, and especially for actually being there, they must be heard on this:
(from http://www.iran-e-sabz.org/statements/ahamdinejad....)
The Green Party of Iran’s statement regarding Ahmadinejad’s remarks about Israel
Ahmadinejad’s aggressive remarks during the “World Without Zionism Conference” in October illustrate that the Iranian regime’s nuclear intentions are not peaceful. Although the international community reacted to Ahmadinejad’s position with criticism, the recurring threats towards another county by the president of Iran proves that the appeasement policy employed by European countries regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions is failing.
The Green Party of Iran condemns Ahmadinejad’s outrageous comments suggesting that Israel be “wiped off the map” and believes that the comments typify the Iranian regime’s war and terrorist mentality. The Green Party of Iran urges the international community to stop appeasing the Iranian regime in regards to their nuclear intentions and to send Iran’s nuclear case to the United Nation’s Security Council. We believe that a protracted appeasement policy by the international community will result in only two possible outcomes – either the use of nuclear weapons against Israel by the Iranian regime – or a preemptive invasion by western countries against Iran. With either outcome, the Iranian people and international peace are the first victims.
Green Party of Iran
October 26 2005
more recent (http://www.wadinet.de/news/iraq/newsarticle.php?id...):
4- The Green Party of Iran once again reiterates the proper political stance of defending the Jews and the people of Israel against the fascist threats of the Islamic Republic and calls upon all the opposition forces to defend all those threatened by the ruling regime, such as the people and country of Israel. The Anti-Semitism and anti Israeli policies of the Islamic Republic have been and remain one of the ideological pillars of the ruling regime in Iran since its establishment. Overlooking this ideological perception of the regime has been one of the missing links amongst the opposition forces struggles against the regime within the past two decades. This missing link has been the cause of deviation of the Iranian opposition forces in their international relations for the benefit of the Iranian people's movement.
[As the Israel Green party has decried the American Greens' delusional prescriptions from afar, an example of the same Iranian party's impatience with lesser informed outsiders' deserves mention (ibid):]
Angelika Beer, defence spokeswoman of the parliamentary fraction of the Green party of Germany ahead of a group of European missionaries visiting Iran and her ludicrous and entirely contradictory report of her meetings with regime's individuals and authorities along with China's U-turn on approving the 3rd UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic exactly one day prior to the publication of this report, are all examples of impedance caused by the publication of this report on lifting the pressure from the rulers of Iran.
Just as I notice certain similarities to Hebrew whenever I encounter Farsi, I sense certain common ground for us as Greens. But it probably would take much work, and a certain bar regarding contribution would have to raised.