Saturday, June 30, 2007

  • Saturday, June 30, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Since Hamas' takeover of Gaza, news of violent deaths have all but stopped as the few PalArab reporters still there cower in fear. But every once in a while something makes it through the new Iron Curtain:
Palestinian medical sources stated on Saturday that a Palestinian woman, Samah Al-Hor, 24, was killed in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip as a result of the "misuse of arms." She mistakenly received a gunshot to the head.
A 24-year old woman being killed in Gaza is more likely to be a victim of an "honor crime" than an accidental gunshot. Either way, our count of PalArabs violently killed by each other in 2007 is now at 475.

UPDATE:
17 year old shot dead in Qalqiya in"mysterious circumstances." 476.

UPDATE 2:
"
Unidentified gunmen shot dead on Tuesday evening a Palestinian teenager in the south of the Gaza Strip. He has been named as Nasser Al-Kilani, 19." 477.

UPDATE 3:
Man killed in crossfire between Hamas and "Army of Islam" in Gaza. 478.

UPDATE 4:
On Saturday, at the same time that the woman above was killed, "At approximately 19:00 also on Saturday, the body of Ahmed al-Sayed Khalil Dughmosh, 28, from Gaza City, was brought to Shifa Hospital. His body was found in Juhor al-Dik village, south of Gaza City. According to medical sources, he was hit by several gunshots throughout the body. Dughmosh had been kidnapped by unknown militants at approximately 17:00 near his house in Tal al-Hawa neighborhood in the southwest of Gaza City." 479.

UPDATE 5:
Palpress.com reports:
Two citizens were killed yesterday in Gaza Strip , one was identified as Mazen Al kasas and was killed by un identified gunmen in Sabra neighborhood in Gaza.
Also Ibrahim Al Kilani 23 years old was killed Tuesday at night after being shot during a family dispute in Khan Yunis southern of Gaza.

481.

UPDATE 6:
Gaza - Ma'an - Capt. Abd Al Majid Abu Lihia, 39, has succumbed to wounds which he sustained in June during clashes surrounding the house of senior Fatah activist, Jamal Abu Al-Jidyan, in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian medical sources reported on Thursday.
Al-Jidyan, by the way, is the famous Abu Billygoats. 482.

Friday, June 29, 2007

  • Friday, June 29, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Hamas has such a good way with children:
Hamas TV on Friday broadcast what it said was the last episode of a weekly children's show featuring "Farfour," a Mickey Mouse look-alike who had made worldwide headlines for preaching Islamic domination and armed struggle to youngsters.

In the final skit, Farfour was beaten to death by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfour's land. At one point, Farfour called the Israeli a "terrorist."

"Farfour was martyred while defending his land," said Sara, the teen presenter. He was killed "by the killers of children," she added.

The weekly show, featuring a giant black-and-white rodent with a high-pitched voice, had attracted worldwide attention because the character urged Palestinian children to fight Israel. It was broadcast on Hamas-affiliated Al-Aksa TV.
Do they have virgin female rats in Muslim paradise?
  • Friday, June 29, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
A video from MEMRI is getting some publicity from LGF and IRIS - a man on the street asking Saudis if they would shake hands with a Jew.

I knew it sounded familiar - I linked to it back in 2004.
-------------
Mere Rhetoric links to a nice article showing Jimmy Carter's duplicity yet again, this time in purposefully misreading Palestinian Arab polls to make them sound peaceful when the poll indicates the exact opposite.
--------------
The new Palestinian Arab PM is saying the right things. Too little, too late, but enough to get everyone all excited again that Peace Is At Hand.
--------------
The Saudi King snubbed Abbas in a most embarrassing way. Whatever Arab pride Abbas ever had is now officially gone.
--------------
  • Friday, June 29, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
I've been tagged in the "8 Facts About Yourself" meme by Fiery Spirited Zionist. As is my habit, I'll answer the questions out of politeness for the requester, but I will not forward the meme to eight others out of politeness to cyberspace - memes are effectively a combination of computer viruses and pyramid schemes.

1. I've been getting up at 5 AM to blog - not a good thing to do.
2. I never learned how to tie my shoes properly.
3. My first computer was a Commodore Vic-20. I wrote some pretty cool games for it at the time, considering I only had 3.5K of memory. Including a game to teach Hebrew using only the joystick. And my version of "Breakout."
4. I never learned how to blow bubbles from bubble gum.
5. I enjoy coming up with answers to memes like this that do not reveal anything about who I really am.
6. I once had an electronic correspondence with an American convert to Islam from Yahoo message boards. She was very serious about Islam and a very nice person. The last I heard from her she was considering moving to Egypt to learn more. I am very, very worried that she was indoctrinated there into Al-Azhar-style fanaticism.
7. I feel guilty for any day I can't find the time to blog.
8. At my college, my first computer course used punch cards, one of my last ones used the very first Macintosh.
Al-Ahram in Egypt printed an op-ed, by a professor of political science at Cairo University, where the author starts off saying what is wrong with Arab conspiracy theories, and then swallows one hook, line and sinker. It has to be seen to be believed:

Many, I believe, share my sense of alarm over current events in the Arab world. Many wonder what will become of a region home to the world's worst crises. In Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Somalia and Sudan millions are being killed and repressed, imprisoned and tortured, expelled and displaced, brutalised and starved. No sooner do explosions abate in one location that they would flare up in another. Places of worship, the traditional safe haven for those in need of protection, have not just been caught up in the cycle of murder, but have become a target for destruction and bombing. Amid the dust cloud rising from chaos, everyone seems to be grabbing each other's throats. Often, we don't know what the fighting is about.
The most disturbing thing is that the crises present in the aforementioned countries keep escalating, finding new twists, and spilling over elsewhere in a whirlwind of intersecting disasters. Like a deadly disease slowly working its way across the region, some of our countries are in utter turmoil while others appear quiet on the surface. We don't hear explosions in these countries, nor do we see rivers of blood flowing. But if we look beneath the surface, we soon discover that these countries are neither immune nor sturdy. An eruption can happen at any moment.
There is no denying that the crises gripping the Arab world, whether evident or latent, have various roots. The causes may differ from one country to another, but there is a common thread somewhere -- a common thread that makes all vulnerable to civil war, to the kind of turmoil that may redraw the map of the region along ethnic or sectarian lines. How did we get into this fix? Is it self-destruction? Or is it the handiwork of outside powers? If so, what are their plans and intents?
So far, so good - the esteemed professor identifies a large undercurrent of problems throughout the Arab world and is seeking a common thread.

The mere asking of such questions causes controversy in the circles of the Arab elite. Any attempt to answer such questions inevitably puts one in one of two camps: the camp of conspiracy theory and the camp of self- deprecation. The camp of conspiracy theory has a ready- made interpretation for every disaster. It blames all sorts of evil on outside powers that hate the Arabs and the Islamic world -- mainly the US and Israel. The camp of self- deprecation takes the opposite point of view. It argues that our troubles are due to pitfalls latent in the nature of Arab and Islamic political systems. Both camps are busy ridiculing each other's thinking. So you can only challenge one or both at your own risk.
The conspiracy theory people tend to overlook aspects of inertia in the structure of Arab and Islamic regimes, as if the latter have no influence on our dismal reality. The self- deprecating people hate to admit that certain powers are plotting against the Arab world, and are therefore responsible for many of our current tribulations. I believe that it is time to get over the polarisation between those two schools of thought. We should start assessing events on the Arab and Islamic scene from various angles and dimensions, both domestic and foreign. We need to look at the entire picture. No conspiracies, however elaborate, can succeed without the inbuilt drawbacks in our systems.
OK, perhaps a little biased, but on the whole an admirable attempt to realistically come to grips with reality. Right?
I would like now to discuss the way the Zionist mind works and how it hopes to establish a major and dominant Jewish state in the region.
Ah, an analysis of the Zionist mind! Things are getting interesting!
To shed light on that issue, consider an article entitled "A strategy for Israel in the 1980s". Oded Yinon, a former Israeli journalist and diplomat, wrote the article in Hebrew. It appeared in February 1982 in the newspaper Kivunim. The article drew the attention of the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, which asked Israel Shahak, the well-known Israeli human rights activist, to translate it into English and comment on it. The article was then republished under the title, "The Zionist plan for the Middle East."
Yes, out of the hundreds of articles written by Israelis and Zionists about foreign affairs in the past six decades, our good professor seems to have decided - based on commentary by one of the most outstanding Jewish anti-semites of recent history - that this one is emblematic of all of Zionist thought.

Some may wonder why I am interested in an article written by an obscure journalist, even if he was a former employee in the Israeli Foreign Minister. Why would I treat that article as if it were an official document released by the Zionist movement or Israel, instead of relying on the many documents released by official figures and organisations? To those, I would say that Professor Shahak, an authority in Zionist thinking, described the article as the most extensive on the subject and as faithfully mirroring the thinking of the Zionist mainstream on the matter of dividing the Arab world.
Just as an example, Shahak wrote in his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion. The Weight of Three Thousand Years that orthodox Jews worship Satan during ritual hand-washing before meals and that Jewish children are taught a curse to say when they walk outside non-Jewish cemeteries. Yes, the professor has found his authority.

Does it make sense, you may ask, for the Zionist movement to publish a paper that would reveal its true intentions, even if it were written in Hebrew? Shahak provides the answer to this question. First, he points out that the aim of the document is to educate the new generations of the Israeli elite, especially in the military, of the thinking of the founding fathers, whose teachings were up to then relayed orally. Secondly, the Zionists doubt the ability of the Arab mind to react sensibly to any threats, however devastating those could be.
Now that we've solved that problem, time to see what this clearly seminal article from that obscure journal that is the blueprint of Zionist thinking actually says.
The Zionist strategy at stake involves two main aspects. One is its perception of the structure of the region surrounding it from the demographic, social and cultural perspectives. The other aspect is its perception of the security of the Jewish state and of the means to defend this security in an absolute manner, which is the ultimate aim of the Zionist movement.

Concerning the first aspect, the Zionist movement sees the Arab world not as an integral entity that is ethnically, socially, or religiously cohesive, but as a region of immense diversity, a mosaic of countries inside which tribes, sects and minorities are in continual conflict. Current entities, or Arab states, have been created through historic and political coincidences related to the ambitions of foreign powers (the imperial powers that inherited the Ottoman Empire) and the interplay of domestic interests (of tribes, clans and political and social movements). The Zionist movement believes that these units, or Arab states, cannot endure in their current form and can easily be dismantled, which would allow for the region to be reshaped on completely different foundations.

Concerning the second aspect, the Zionist movement believes that Israel's security cannot be achieved through military superiority alone, however important that military superiority may be. So no other major central state should be allowed to exist in the region. The Zionist movement is determined to break up any central state in the region and divide it into small entities created on ethnic or sectarian lines. Once this is done, Israel would become vindicated, for its ethnic foundations would be no different than that of other countries in the region; and Israel would become the biggest, strongest, and most advanced country in the Middle East. This would give it the clout it needs to lead the region and control its future course. In other words, Israel would be the region's mastermind, the country that calls the shots and tells others what to do.
I can imagine a serious article talking about how fractured the Arab world is, and even how it is in Israel's interests to encourage indigenous ethnic Arab subgroups to assert themselves. But it takes a special kind of paranoia to see this article as a blueprint for regional Zionist domination that echoes, in nationlistic terms, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And now that this Egyptian professor feels that his arguments are air-tight, he is free to see the world since 1982 in terms of Jewish - um, Zionist - domination:

The above is a short synopsis of Yinon's article, and yet the article is worthy of further discussion. First, because the article was published for the first time years after Egypt signed a peace agreement with Israel, a few months after the assassination of President Anwar El-Sadat, and a few months before Israel pulled out of Sinai on 25 April 1982. When Israel invaded Lebanon, less than four months after the article was published, it was literally doing everything Yinon recommended. ...

Second, it has now become clear, beyond any doubt, that the Zionist movement, led by Israel, has played a pivotal role in prodding the current US administration to invade Iraq. The US administration acted like a tool in the hand of a Zionist movement that wanted Iraq partitioned at any cost, and that hopes to see other countries in the region follow suit.

Third, it is the right of future generations of Arab citizens to be aware of plots against their countries. We must encourage the young generations to keep an open mind about all ideas, including those attributed to conspiracy theories, before they wake up one day and discover that their future has been shattered or their land taken away.

I will dedicate three more articles to a detailed discussion of Yinon's essay. In the first article, I will discuss Zionist schemes against Egypt, focussing on Israel's hope to restore Sinai and divide Egypt into two states, a Coptic one in the south and a Sunni one in the north. In the second article, I will discuss Zionist designs on the eastern part of the Arab world; namely, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. In the third, I will discuss Zionist schemes for the Gulf and North Africa. Again, I do not wish to promote conspiracy theories per se, but some risks of naïvety are too real to ignore.
There you have it. A secret Zionist plan, cleverly leaked out to the public where only the most far-seeing Arabs can see its huge importance, for regional dominance and the destruction of the Arab world.

This is how the elite academics and intellectuals of the Arab world - in a country that is supposedly at peace with Israel - think. (I would rather not fall into the trap this author does of generalizing one article - if someone can find me Egyptian political science articles that do not think that there is a Zionist plan to dominate the Arab world or the world at large, I will be happy to give it equal space. But I've never seen it.)

Thursday, June 28, 2007

  • Thursday, June 28, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
In an astonishing public display of impotence, Ehud Olmert has essentially told the residents of Sderot to just suck it up and not kvetch so much about living in a human shooting gallery:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Thursday that he had no intention of providing maximal protection to all residents of Gaza periphery communities. "A country cannot protect itself ad infinitum, because there would be no end to it."

Olmert was addressing the Caesarea Conference.

The prime minister added that stepping up protection would be "just as [ineffective] as the demand to solve Sderot's Kassam problem by wiping Beit Hanun and other towns in Gaza off the face of the earth.

The prime minister appealed to the residents of the Gaza periphery: "In the short term we cannot supply you with all of the personal security that we would like to provide, because such protection would draw from expensive resources that are needed for other critical security needs."

Olmert also addressed the media, asking that they "not encourage, even mutely, demands of citizens that no normal government could accept." He added that "life in Israel entails a certain security risk, and anyone who chooses to live in the Jewish state is accepting this risk." And yet, "the risk in Israel is lower than the risk threatening Jews in other parts of the world."
Olmert makes Abbas look strong.

His straw man argument that since perfect security is impossible, the current level of security must be OK is not worthy of a high school debating team.

His apparent concern of the safety of Palestinian Arabs in Gaza sworn to destroy the Jewish state to be equivalent or superior to his concern about the residents of Israel itself is nothing short of obscene coming from any citizen, let alone the supposed leader of the country.

And his request that the media not take the side of citizens who, because of Olmert's failed policy of disengagement, are now in daily peril is more reminiscent of a Syria than an Israel.
  • Thursday, June 28, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Yesterday:
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas took steps Tuesday against factional fighting by outlawing armed groups outside the official PA security forces, and ruling that the government will confiscate all arms from these groups.

"On the basis of the declaration of a state of emergency in the Palestinian territories, and by virtue of my authority, all armed militias, groups and brigades that do not belong in practice to the security services shall be treated as illegal organizations," stated the decree.
Today:
Fatah-affiliated Al Aqsa Brigades refuse to dissolve or to disarm and reject the truce in the West Bank

The Fatah-affiliated Al Aqsa Brigades have announced that they have rejected the presidential decree regarding the disbanding of militia in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The spokesman of the brigades, Abu Oday, told Ma'an that, following consultations with the brigades' leaders in the West Bank, they have issued the following declaration:

First: the rejection of the dissolution of the brigades, "because they are a resistance group, and are defending the country and the dignity of the people".

Second: the refusal to disarm the group, "because it is a legitimate arm of resistance, and is the only weapon to remain to defend the Intifada ["Uprising"]."

Third: the rejection of the description of the brigades as 'militias', "which defame the Palestinians, and it is nonsense to describe the only remaining armed wing as a militia." [EoZ - wonder what they think of "terrorists?"]

Fourth: the brigades support the presidents' decision to withdraw illegal arms used in the lawlessness, and announce that they stand with the security forces to stop the state of disorder.

Fifth: the brigades will "do their best" to aid the security forces, "and will be honored to stand beside the security forces to defend the country."

Sixth: the brigades will not be complacent before the crimes of the occupation, "and will retaliate for the crimes committed [by the occupying Israeli military], especially in the recent days in the [Gaza] Strip, Nablus and Jenin.

Seventh: the brigades reject the connection established between themselves and the current state of lawlessness, and confirm that they "were created to confront the occupation and its aggression against the Palestinian people".

Eighth: the brigades will not be committed to a truce with the Israelis, as long as the occupation continues the crimes and incursions against Palestinians and their cities.
Abbas' next move will be, as usual, forfeit.

Either Abbas controls the terrorists, in which case he is complicit in terrorism, or he has no ability to control his own factions, in which case he is weak to the point of irrelevance. Either way, he is not someone who should be "strengthened" and rewarded.
  • Thursday, June 28, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Gaza and the West Bank are reminiscent of American inner cities in the 60s and 70s. No authority figures, no leadership, poverty, rampant crime, extraordinarily dangerous, ruled by gangs, and the complete absence of any sort of justice. In addition, the criminals are quick to blame the rest of the world for their actions while the innocent residents are stuck with nowhere else to go.

The differences between the two cases are perhaps more enlightening. . Slums were cleaned up by a combination of innovative economic programs, grass-roots volunteerism and outside investment. But in the end, the people who were vital to cleaning up drug-infested neighborhoods were the residents themselves. There were still a significant number of residents who got used to the welfare culture and who had little interest in doing work - they got their food and a little money for doing nothing, which seems like a great deal. Yet a significant number of American slum residents still managed to get to real jobs, to interact with the rest of society and to have hope for the future; they were the heroes who finally stood up to the gangs and put in the hard work necessary to fix up and beautify their neighborhoods.

In the end, those who feel the most entitled are the worst people to have around when a society needs fixing.

Since the Intifada, the Palestinian Arabs are now far more dependent on the world's largesse than any slum community ever was. They have been told for years by the world that a Palestinian Arab state is inevitable and will happen no matter what - sometimes, even within specified timetables. Their once proud Arab culture has been transformed into a series of giant ghettos with pockets of normalcy amongst the twin cultures of death and entitlement.

Before 2000, even though their leaders had little interest in truly building a state, they at least had hope - they had jobs, they had an economy, they had some measure of pride. But we are going on to seven years now of the Palestinian Arab welfare state - billions of dollars thrown into compensate for the economic catastrophe that the Intifada wrought.

The American ghettos still had a critical mass of people who were willing to stand up and take responsibility. The PA ghettos have raised an entire generation of people who not only feel that they are owed everything, but that the violence that caused their problems is laudable and heroic.

Up until 2006, one could still sympathize with the presumed majority of innocent Palestinian Arabs who just wanted to live their lives and raise their families. But it has become clear since then that the majority has shifted, that the culture of death (from the most respected religious figures) and entitlements (from the UN, the EU and the world) has become the major driving forces in the Palestinian Arab psyche. Hamas' victories in 2006 may have been a backlash against Fatah corruption but it is also an indication of the value that this society places on pure terror. It is not surprising that this twin culture has spawned deadly infighting.

If Tony Blair succeeds in building up the economy of the PA it would be a win-win for all the parties involved (besides the terrorists.) In the end, however, the major ingredient for fixing the PA will not come from without but from within, and right now it doesn't look like there are enough people left in the territories to stand up and do what is necessary. Until real eaders emerge, until personal responsibility becomes the norm again, all the money in the world will not only be wasted on the Palestinian Arabs but it will entrench the twin cultures of death and entitlement.
  • Thursday, June 28, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
Ma'an Arabic reports today that Fatah has rejected any dialogue with Hamas, after Hamas' Haniyeh said that Hamas is ready for immediate talks.

When Israeli right-wingers decide not to talk to terrorists, they are routinely described as "intransigent" and "hardline" and "hawkish." In contrast, the Fatah terrorist leaders that want to keep talking to Israel (to gain more concessions for free) are invariably described as "moderate" and "pragmatic."

Somehow, I don't think we will see these descriptions in this case. When the press is solidly behind one faction, it takes a great deal to dislodge their biases - and the decades of Fatah corruption and terror has barely dented the media's love of that "moderate" group, nor its conviction that Fatah and the PLO are the best leaders of an inevitable future Palestinian Arab state.
  • Thursday, June 28, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
On the Al-Qassam (Hamas terror wing) Arabic website there is a readers' poll asking if the firing of Qassam rockets towards Israel contributes to safety and security in Gaza.

At the moment, the vote is 84% yes, 14% no.

And they have 6000 votes.

I imagine that the BBC would spin it as "84% of Hamas supporters desire peace."

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

  • Wednesday, June 27, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
The BBC manages to use the words "Hamas" and "moderate" in the same sentence:
Osama Bin Laden's number two has called on the Islamist group Hamas to unite with al-Qaeda after its victory in Gaza over Fatah, in a web-posted audiotape.

Ayman al-Zawahiri also warned against any attempt by Arab countries to wrest control of the Gaza Strip from Hamas.

Al-Qaeda has in the past criticised Hamas for taking part in the political process in the Palestinian territories.

Hamas leaders, who espouse a more moderate brand of Islamist politics, have always shunned al-Qaeda advances.

The Beeb needs to make Hamas sound moderate, because otherwise one needs to conclude that Palestinian Arabs voluntarily elected a terrorist government, which is just way beyond what the intelligentsia who trust the BBC for news can possibly comprehend in their giant sophisticated brains.

Now, what exactly makes Hamas more "moderate" than Al Qaeda? The BBC doesn't deign to tell us, although it implies that the fact that Hamas participated in an election gives it the "moderate" bona-fides. Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the spiritual father of both Hamas and al-Qaeda, is part of the political process in Egypt now as well. I suppose if al-Qaeda holds a Syrian-style election it can be called "moderate" as well.

In fact, Hamas and al-Qaeda hold virtually identical worldviews - the establishment of a world Islamic caliphate, and Hamas considers Palestine just the first step in its role. Hamas' slogan is "Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes." Is there any real difference between that and al-Qaeda's philosophy?

In reality, the reason that the BBC considers Hamas "moderate" is because its immediate target is only Israel, not the entire West. Since Israel is disposable from the Beeb's point of view, then by definition anyone who explicitly only wants Israel destroyed is a "moderate."
(h/t Daled Amos)
  • Wednesday, June 27, 2007
  • Elder of Ziyon
From the "Atlantic Free Press", by Juan Cole:
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul continue to show themselves among the few in Congress with any integrity and backbone. They declined to go along with a resolution charging Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide, given his alleged call for Israel to be 'wiped off the face of the map.'

As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.' Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed.

I was talking to two otherwise well-informed Israeli historians a couple of weeks ago, and they expressed the conviction that Ahmadinejad had threatened to nuke Israel. I was taken aback. First of all, Iran doesn't have a nuke. Second, there is no proof that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. Third, Ahmadinejad has denied wanting a bomb. Fourth, Ahmadinejad has never threatened any sort of direct Iranian military action against Israel. In other words, that is a pretty dramatic fear for educated persons to feel, on the basis of . . . nothing.

I renew my call to readers to write protest letters to newspapers and other media every time they hear it alleged that Ahmadinejad (or "Iran"!) has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." There is no such idiom in Persian and it is not what he said, and the mistranslation gives entirely the wrong impression. Wars can start over bad translations.

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.
Cole is engaging in the usual dishonesty so endemic among the terror-supporting Left where he attempts to use semantics to stupidly argue a point. (Those who claim that the term "anti-semite" means "hating Arabs, who are Semites" do this all the time.)

(His argument that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, based entirely on Iranian denials, is so absurd as to seem almost a parody of intellectualism.)

Let's look at exactly what Michael Rubin wrote, as he was demolishing Cole (and note that Cole does not address his point here:)
Revisionism is in full swing in Washington as some academics and policymakers bend over backwards to convince themselves and others that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not mean what he says.
Today, the National Iranian American Council—a lobby group advocating the normalization of ties between the United States and the Islamic Republic—published this analysis, which ends:
The proper translation of Ahmadinejad’s quotes has been the subject of some debate. Kucinich argued that the translations used in the bill were either misquoted or out of context, offering alternative translations from the New York Times to convey his point.
It's a line which originated with Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor, has peddled. Indeed, Cole wrote:
I have a suggestion for my readers. Every time you see a newspaper article that alleges that Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, please write the editor. Say that this idiom does not exist in Persian, and that what Ahmadinejad actually said was, "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." And you can cite me.
Perhaps one can quibble over how to render a translation. Here, the Islamic Republic provides its own clarification. In its official translations, it headlined Ahmadinejad's call to "wipe Israel off the map."
There is a tendency among academics to feel they have to advocate for those countries they study. They should not. Nor should they advocate for the U.S. government. They should analyze dispassionately. But, ignoring or burying evidence that reflects badly on a regime is more likely to advance misunderstanding than advance rapprochement. It is time academics and policymakers both deal with reality as it is, rather than a sanitized version they would wish it to be.
Note Cole's dishonesty as he pretends that the official Iranian translation was just copying from American mistranslations.

The best proof that Cole knows his argument is weak is that he freely links to Kucinich's comments, but not to Michael Rubin's - because he knows that he is not saying anything that disproves Rubin's point. Rubin, on the other hand, has no such problem linking to Cole.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive