The incompetence of the media and their pathological motives

by Irfan Ahmed

I can’t seem to grasp how the full speech of Iranian President Ahmadinejad on “The World Without Zionism” [1] has led to a complete uproar, declaring Iran a “”the world’s leading sponsor of state terror” [2] by President Bush during his visit to the Middle East. But one must question how such a notion came about. If you guessed the reverberating phrase “wipe Israel off the map” [3] played a significant role as to condemning Iran as a nuclear threat to the harmony of the world, you’d be totally correct. But what’s interesting about this article is that within it, Ahmadinejad is willing to move towards peaceful measures stating ” We do not need a bomb. We are against bombs, actually. There are many reasons we are against it” [4]. To the right winger’s they smell a demagogue or a heretic, but to the leftists, a harmonious leader standing for stabilization in a region henpecked by the western forces. I would side with the leftists on this one.

From the very speech he made at the Islamic Student Association conference, he stated the most controversial rumor: ” Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine” [5] But just before this little tidbit, which the right wing neo-cons manage to exploit, came a piece which was deafening to most at the start of the speech, where he clearly stated: “We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is ‘no.’” [6] With that said, the speech was geared to confront a problem, which even Jews do not agree with, Zionism. Zionism means “The belief that Jews should have their own nation” [7]. Although there has been many attempts to have peace agreements with Palestine, in order to declare Israel a right to exist and a possible formation of a Palestinian state, many non-state actors such as Hamas disagree with the this and fear Israel may become a whole nation, hence the end of Palestinians right to exist on a land where contumacy prevails. And this is an issue Ahmadinejad is trying to converge upon, but scrutiny tends to blind personnel judgment in the western media and contrive in false misconceptions, in another words he was maliciously portrayed for right-wing agendas. But what did Ahmadinejad mean when he stated “occupying regime must be wiped off the map”?

Well it seems we must refer to the Farsi written version of it, since it was delivered in such fashion. To begin with lets take a look at the farsi version which goes like this ”Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” [8]. I take a look at an article written by Jonathan Steele, a columnist of the Guardian, where he delivered this very important piece of information from his article called “Lost In Translation”, in which he states: “Khomeini’s words were abstract: ‘Sahneh roozgar.’ Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as ‘map’” [9]. Steele continues to state: “If the Iranian president made a mistake and used “safheh” rather than “sahneh”, that is of little moment. A native English speaker could equally confuse “stage of history” with “page of history”. The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem.” [10]. So in other words the actual speech, translated into English should look something like this: “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).” [11]

Could it be that the Iranian President used the Ayatollah’s speech to signify the meaning of occupations in general ranging from the installation of the Shah in Iran to the threatening military dictator of Iraq, Saddam? In some ways yes, when comparing it to the Palestinians. Any historian knows the countless occupations which have occurred in the Muslim world when they have interacted with the West. One shouldn’t cast Iran as a supporter of terrorism, or at the least a threat to any nation, without reviewing it’s intentions and beliefs. Furthermore, we should seek to correct the mistakes made by the media before they plunge into more provocative propaganda and encroach upon the consciences of war-mongering individuals. As human beings our job is to stop error and prevent it from encompassing over truth, for if that happens, be prepared for more troubling news.

References:

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?_r=1&ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070&oref=slogin

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2240252,00.html

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/12/ahmadinejad.itn/index.html?iref=newssearch

[4] Ibid

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5070&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ex=1161230400

[6] Ibid

[7] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Zionism

[8] http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

[9] http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

[10] Ibid

[11] http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

~ by quicksilva212 on January 14, 2008.