Does Ahmadinejad really want to destroy Israel?

Well, does he? I mean, we've been hearing about how crazy this guy is, but come on: is he really that stupid to launch a nuke at Tel Aviv?

After much research into the issue, I found that when you sift through the propaganda, and clear away all allegations of him being unstable and psychotic, the answer is simply NO. To the average Arab who watches CNN and other Western media outlets, it is clear that much misinformation has been relayed to the Western public in that people are misquoted, and statements by MidEastern political leaders are being taken out of context. Several independent agencies in the U.S. are used for this purpose, among them being MEMRI-TV, famous for its controversial mistranslations of Arabs in the media. For example, it has misquoted people like Sheik Yusuf Al Qardawi, saying that he "ordered the murdering of Jews in the name of Islam", when the transcript of the program itself showed otherwise: he was simply repeating the same "fight against the Zionist oppressors" rhetoric that many sheiks spew out, which is in that case justified: attack those who attack you. Now, I admit, at least, that there are many radical sheiks out there, and that they have made Islam look bad using extremist and literal interpretations of text, a topic that I will be addressing later on.

For now, let's return to Ahmadinejad. In his "World Without Zionism" speech, he stated that "one day, Israel will be wiped off the map" and that "Israel should be moved to Europe", amongst other things such as denying the Holocaust, which in my humble opinion is a stupid thing to do as there is enough evidence for this crime against humanity which involved the mass-murdering of Jews, Communists, and other political opponents of the German National Socialist (NAZI) party. While I am a Palestinian, "wiping Israel off the map" is not something I would advocate nor would it be something practical. Why? Several factors come into play. The first is the fact that if Ahmadinejad fires a nuke, he would be faced with even more from Israel. Mutually-Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) applies everywhere, every place and every time, even in the Iran-Israel case that we are witnessing here. Second, Ahmadinejad has yet to construct nukes. According to this Al Jazeera article, Iran does not have enough uranium to build The Bomb. Third, Ahmadinejad stated that he would support a state transfer of Israel to Europe, in the sense that he believes that Europe should accept responsibility for the Holocaust (especially Germany). I'd agree with this if it weren't for the first and second generations of Israelis living in Israeli territory today, but he kind of meant to say, "If the Jews suffered at the hands of the Germans, why should the Palestinians pay the price?".

Putting this all aside, one can see that he is simply repeating the rhetoric of his predecessors and the previous Ayatollahs before him. Granted, I may not agree with him or support the guy, but his rhetoric does not convince me that he is a threat.

I stated before that Ahmadinejad was misquoted in his first speech. REUTERS and CNN are both launching such a propaganda war against Iran, and the rightwing machine is at it again, spewing out the usual warmongering rhetoric. I guess that they should watch their mouths before talking about invading Iran and attacking it. According to VoltaireNet.org,

Some States demanded explanations from Iranian Ambassadors and even got to call their Ambassadors in Tehran for consultation. However, the Iranian authorities, refused to render accounts, limited themselves to release the video of president Ahmadineyad’s speech. But since the later spoke in Farsi, the video was immediately broadcasted in the international networks as a confirmation of the words attributed, without further verification.

However, the facts are very different. President Ahmadineyad never said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, but he endorsed the statement made by imam Khomeini that someday the Zionist regime would be wiped from the map (see document below on the same page). There is therefore, no such radicalization of Iran, but the same position stated 25 years ago. Neither is there a threat from Iran to kill anyone, let alone to commit genocide against the Israeli people. There is only a position of principle to condemn the Zionism on the same basis as Iran condemns apartheid, racism and anti-Semitism.

The last bit should not be surprising: Israel is a state that is born out of terrorism and racism against the Palestinian people, and the only thing that keeps it expanding is its continued policies of apartheid. However, any anti-Semitism resulting from Israel's expansionism is as unacceptable as any Islamophobia that results from the terrorist acts of many radical groups like Phillippine's Abu Sayyaf. I will be discussing Israel much later on, albeit it is somewhat part of the topic. The press release from the Islamic Republic News Agency of Iran only serves to confirm my point.

Iran was misquoted again a few weeks later, this time on part of CNN, which translated "We are pursuing peaceful nuclear technology" to "We are pursuing nuclear weapons". I mean, it should be obvious that much of the misinformation and propaganda evident in Western media is done on purpose. Also, the Washington Times is considering the same standpoint as are Reuters and CNN:

The conservative US daily The Washington Times is not satisfied with the accusations raised by the Bush administration against the Islamic Republic of Iran with respect to an imaginary military nuclear program, with the aim of describing that country as their number one enemy.

In its latest edition, the newspaper— which is owned by Reverend Moon and is largely read by the Washington elite—tells us the tragic history of “Mohammed” the Iraqi, whose nephew was recruited in a Baghdad mosque to be trained during a month in the practice of the Shiite militias. Such a practice included, according to the author, the search for opponents to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI, near Teheran) in their places and eliminated them. This “information”, which is impossible to verify due to the alleged anonymity that should be used to protect witnesses, allows the newspaper to kill two birds with one stone, putting all responsibility of violence in Iraq on the Shiite minority, which would charge at the Sunni in the outskirts of Baghdad and by extension at Iran.

It was just the other day that I have recounted exaggerated stories of Saddam's torture chambers on the Washington Times, but sadly, I do not have the link for it.

Just a few months later, Ahmadinejad, it seems, was misquoted again in repeating the same old-fashioned rhetoric adopted by his predecessors. Are we seeing an attempt at warmongering by the right-wing machine that intends to plunder Iran's oil wealth, or are we seeing another attempt at inciting interventionism? Ahmadinejad, whether you like it or not, was democratically elected by his people, and democracy is one of the few things that old Dubya likes to "preach", but he certainly is not living up to his word. Just so you all know, I am no fan of either Dubya Bush nor Ahmadinejad, but I am only standing up for the real victims here: the Iranian people, whether they be subdued by Ahmadinejad's regime, or killed off by invading Coalition troops.

Farewell and God bless.

Salaam, from
Saracen