Excellent analysis by Hiro. Just a pity he didn't get into more detail about how the demand by the UNSC for Iran "to cease its enrichment of uranium" was in fact illegal, contradicting a lawful treaty, the NPT, that allows its signatories "the inalienable right...to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination"
orwellwasright is spot on the money:
"Couldn't have that interfering with the Bush's traditionally belligerent stance now, could we? Not when the war profiteers are on a role!"
The truth of the blind robbery in Iraq by 'contractors' is vividly described in the excellent article in Rolling Stone:
The Great Iraq Swindle
How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S. Treasury
29 August 2007
Michael Ledeen, Freedom Scholar or Dunce and Propagandist?
Its laughable that the AEI call Ledeen a ’scholar’. I mean he can’t even get elementary facts straight.
In an excerpt of his new book featured on the website of the Jewish Policy Center, and commented on by Jim Lobe in his blog, Ledeen states:
“Shortly after the revolution, in November 1979, Iranian-supported “pilgrims” on the Hajj in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, occupied the Grand Mosque, took several hundred hostages, and called for the overthrow of the ruling Saudi family.”
Of course this actually took place in July 1987, if we are to believe GlobalSecurity.org:
“In July 1987, however, more than 400 people died as a result of a serious riot instigated by thousands of Iranian pilgrims. Khomeini called for the overthrow of the Saudi royal family to avenge the pilgrims’ deaths.”
In fact 402 people, mostly Iranian pilgrims, were killed and 649 wounded when security forces clashed with Iranians staging an anti- U.S. demonstration.
The November 20, 1979 incident had nothing to do with Iran.
Again according to GlobalSecurity.org:
“at least 500 dissidents invaded and seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca on November 20, 1979. The leader of the dissidents, Juhaiman ibn Muhammad ibn Saif al Utaiba, a Sunni, was from one of the foremost families of Najd. His grandfather had ridden with Abd al Aziz in the early decades of the century, and other family members were among the foremost of the Ikhwan. Juhaiman said that his justification was that the Al Saud had lost its legitimacy through corruption, ostentation, and mindless imitation of the West–virtually an echo of his grandfather’s charge in 1921 against Abd al Aziz. Juhaiman’s accusations against the Saudi monarchy closely resembled Ayatollah Ruhollah Musaui, Khomeini’s diatribes against the shah.”
So the ’scholar’ manages to re-interpret the resemblance of Abd al Aziz Juhaiman’s accusations to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s diatribes against the shah as being proof that the “”pilgrms” were “Iranian-supported”.
It would be laughable if it wasn’t criminal.
In an excerpt of his new book featured on the website of the Jewish Policy Center, and commented on by Jim Lobe in his blog, Ledeen states:
“Shortly after the revolution, in November 1979, Iranian-supported “pilgrims” on the Hajj in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, occupied the Grand Mosque, took several hundred hostages, and called for the overthrow of the ruling Saudi family.”
Of course this actually took place in July 1987, if we are to believe GlobalSecurity.org:
“In July 1987, however, more than 400 people died as a result of a serious riot instigated by thousands of Iranian pilgrims. Khomeini called for the overthrow of the Saudi royal family to avenge the pilgrims’ deaths.”
In fact 402 people, mostly Iranian pilgrims, were killed and 649 wounded when security forces clashed with Iranians staging an anti- U.S. demonstration.
The November 20, 1979 incident had nothing to do with Iran.
Again according to GlobalSecurity.org:
“at least 500 dissidents invaded and seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca on November 20, 1979. The leader of the dissidents, Juhaiman ibn Muhammad ibn Saif al Utaiba, a Sunni, was from one of the foremost families of Najd. His grandfather had ridden with Abd al Aziz in the early decades of the century, and other family members were among the foremost of the Ikhwan. Juhaiman said that his justification was that the Al Saud had lost its legitimacy through corruption, ostentation, and mindless imitation of the West–virtually an echo of his grandfather’s charge in 1921 against Abd al Aziz. Juhaiman’s accusations against the Saudi monarchy closely resembled Ayatollah Ruhollah Musaui, Khomeini’s diatribes against the shah.”
So the ’scholar’ manages to re-interpret the resemblance of Abd al Aziz Juhaiman’s accusations to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s diatribes against the shah as being proof that the “”pilgrms” were “Iranian-supported”.
It would be laughable if it wasn’t criminal.
04 August 2007
The Most Powerful Weapon in the World - Strategic Communication Laboratories and the war for your mind
I was doing some research on the internet, regarding some of the sources used by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed in his book: "The War on Truth, 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism", which I am reading at the moment, when I came across the article.
I was looking into Yossef Bodansky, and looked into his relationship with the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), where I noticed the name of the "Hon." Sir Geoffrey Pattie , a recipient of the ISSA award "Rewarding Those Who Contribute to Peace and Human Progress".
Pattie was appointed Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence (RAF) in May 1979. From January 1983 until September 1984 he was Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence Procurement and then served as Minister of State for Defence Procurement. He continued his public service as Minister of State for Industry until 1987. He was also vice-chairman of the Conservative Party in 1990.
I followed the Wikipedia link and noticed that Pattie is "chairman of Strategic Communication Laboratories, a strategic communications company based at St. James's Square, London". No link was given in the Wikepedia entry for Pattie but a quick search led me to their website.
SCL's home page (link now broken) has this to say: "Strategic Communication Laboratories has pioneered a new methodology to enable governments and countries to manage their relationships with their key audience groups through more powerful communication. "
"The methodology is based on 16 years of academic research and development conducted at 42 universities around the globe. It uses scientific techniques from a variety of social sciences to make ‘communications with groups’ far more effective (and measurable). "
"SCL offers various solutions based on this methodology to help countries in specific governmental areas such as defence, foreign affairs, internal security, health, finance and tourism. "
"In a world where the perception is the reality, all countries need to have the capability to manage their own perceptual alignment – otherwise someone else will. "
But anyway better to brouse through the SCL website. It provides alarming reading, especially when one comes to the What can we do for you? section:
"Homeland Security The last 5 years have seen a flurry of Homeland Security scenarios enacted and re-enacted on the streets of our cities. What if there is a biological attack, or the detonation of multiple explosive devices? Many of these simulated scenarios are excellent planning exercises for the emergency services and security forces."
"However, a major flaw has emerged in many of the scenarios - the unmanageability of civilians. They do not behave as they are supposed to. When a virus hits a city, civilians do not line up for vaccination: they run for the hills. When terrorists are looking for a target, it is the predictability of civilian behaviour that makes the terrorists' job easier. What if there was a way to control civilian behaviour when it counts? Imagine the benefits of having civilians as cooperating partners. "
"Strategic Communication makes the people part of the solution, not part of the problem."
Or how about the section "What is an OpCentre " where we read these answers to their own question: "What can the OpCentre do? "
"Engender support within the national community for proposed military action "
"Develop national resilience and behavioural compliance for homeland security issues"
In the section entitled "What modules are in an OpCentre? ", we see that they have a "Media Management Unit" and a "Word-of Mouth Unit"
In the section "Typical Projects" we find the following: "Design and installation of a Strategic Communication Centre to improve a country's ability to conduct Public Diplomacy."
Public Diplomacy. They are masters at it, I mean just look at the sentence "The right message can stop a war", or in fact, start one...
Taking a closer look at some of the Key Management, we find Gavin McNicoll, Advisory Board, whose biography states: "Gavin has an M.A. in International relations and Philosophy from St Andrews University with honours in Intelligence, Terrorism, U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East. He is the founder of Eden Intelligence, a specialist provider of small scale, high impact conferences on counter-terrorism and security related issues and the responsible for the International Terrorism and Intelligence programme, now a landmark event in the counter-terrorism calendar, bringing together the leading counter-terrorist minds from around the world. In 2005 he founded a new programme of work International Terrorism and Finance to focus on financial intelligence cooperation issues on a G8 plus level. The meeting and agenda for ITF have been supported by assistance form the Home Office, Her Majesty’s Treasury, The Foreign & Commonwealth Office, The National Criminal Intelligence Service and The Metropolitan Police."
Taking a look at Eden Intelligence, we find the following: "Eden Intelligence organizes small scale, high impact gatherings on counter-terrorism and security related issues in a strictly closed environment that encourages debate and sharing of insights. Our goal is to facilitate dialogue amongst the security and counter-terrorism community's leading experts" and "The company specialises in its conferences being 'off-the-record' with top level speakers from both academic and professional organizations. These are not sales events but rather non-promotional opportunities for high quality, high level discussion and networking prospects for attendees and sponsors."
We also read that "All events are held under the strict or old version of the Chatham House Rule": "By the strict or old version of the Chatham House Rule., no publication, reporting or attribution, nor any public use may be made of the proceedings of the meeting - the meeting is closed. The highest priority is given by both the CSTPV and Eden Intelligence to ensuring the Rule is observed."
Eden Intelligence (EI) also do Energy Security Analysis, and at the The 3rd Energy Risk Management Seminar in 2005, Giulio Thuburn, Head of Eden Intelligence Energy Security Research, gave a lecture entitled "The Militarization of the Oil Industry: Assessing the Effect of Terrorism on the Oil Markets".
We find the following 'key interactions' (slide 6);
"1. Energy is the key priority. Protecting economic growth
and political stability
2. Governments strategy focused on security in the
energy corridors supplying it. "
But wait, that's not all. Getting back to Strategic Communication Laboratories, Steve Watson writes "The company has invested nearly $20 million into research at what they call the Behavioural Dynamics Institute (BDi), the world’s leading authority on persuasion, communication psychology and public diplomacy. Given that they are the "World's leaders" it is strange that they do not have a website."
Actually, they do Steve, but its not particularly informative. But what they do say is also chilling:
"The Behavioural Dynamics Institute is the leading international centre of excellence for research and development into persuasion and social influence...Today, the institute has an academic network which spans the globe. It is the only academic organisation in the world whose understanding of the psychology of persuasion has been successfully applied on a global scale"
What is BDi?
"The Behavioural Dynamics Institute is an academic institute that specialises in understanding influence and persuasion in order to change audiences’ attitudes and behaviour. The institute specialises in applying its methodology to military and political campaigns, where the audiences are hostile or friendly, national or international.
The BDi was formed in 1990 and has invested over £19m in developing scientific approaches for ‘influencing a target audience’. The unique methodology draws extensively from group and social psychology and incorporates semiotics,semantics and many elements of cultural anthropology.
The BDi harnesses the leading academics from universities around the world sothat the ‘persuasion and influence’ body of knowledge is constantly at the cutting edge. Using advanced research techniques, the BDi can accurately diagnose an audience from within (in theatre) or remotely, so that a clear understanding of the group dynamics can be ascertained.
The BDi then develops the most powerful psychological approach (using the data)to produce a programme of communication and ‘perceptions,’ which will be the most likely to engineer the desired result from the Target Audience. The attitude and behavioural changes are highly quantifiable and accountable, generating a real MOE (Measure of Effectiveness) report.
The Behavioural Dynamics Institute can tell you how ‘difficult’ an audience is likely to be, how best to influence the audience and then can actually produce the communications or triggers that will change the audience."
It also led me to this article on Slate: You Can't Handle the Truth, Psy-ops propaganda goes mainstream. By Sharon Weinberger
A few paragraphs give us the picture:
"Strategic Communication Laboratories, a small U.K. firm specializing in "influence operations" made a very public debut this week with a glitzy exhibit occupying prime real estate at Defense Systems Equipment International, or DSEi, the United Kingdom's largest showcase for military technology. The main attraction was a full-scale mock-up of its ops center, running simulations ranging from natural disasters to political coups."
Mark Broughton, SCL's public affairs director is quoted in the article:
"Yes, Broughton acknowledges, the ops center is not exactly giving the truth, but he adds, "Is it not worth giving an untruth for 48 hours to save x million people's lives? Sometimes the means to an end has to be recognized."
Who buys this stuff? Broughton declined to mention many specific clients, noting that disclosing SCL's involvement—particularly in countries with a free and open media—could make its campaigns less effective. However, he says that post-apartheid South Africa has employed SCL. So has the United Nations, he says.
The company's Web site is even vaguer, mentioning international organizations and foreign governments. A Google search produces only a handful of hits, mostly linked to the company's Web site. The company's work is based on something that even the spokesman admits you "won't find on the Web": the Behavioral Dynamics Institute, a virtual lab led by Professor Phil Taylor of Leeds University.
But the company, which is funded by private investors, is now taking on a higher profile, and visitors flocked to the flashy setup here at the show. "Basically, we're launching ourselves this week on the defense market and homeland security market at the same time," Broughton explained.
If SCL has its way, its vision of strategic communications—which involves complex psychological and scientific data—could be used to shape public response to tsunamis, epidemics, or even the next Hurricane Katrina.
Well aware that the company may face controversy, particularly with its push into the defense market, Broughton emphasizes the company's role in saving lives.
"It sounds altruistic," he said. "There is some altruism in it, but we also want to earn money.""
I don't know about you but I'm beginning to think Chomsky and Hermann's Propaganda Model needs a little updating...
-----------------------------------
Please note that since this article was published SCL has redesigned its website and much of what was there has now been removed. Some information is available here.
Update 30 September 2010
As over the last 3 years certain links have broken here are new ones where available:
Eden Intelligence have a new website.
BDi have a new website.
15 July 2007
Exchange with Robert Tait, Guardian
15 July 2007
Dear Robert Tait,
In Thursday's article 'Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel' you state: "Mr Ahmadinejad had earlier said that Israel should be "wiped off the map"."
Why do you choose to perpetuate this discredited lie? Discredited by your own colleague, Jonathan Steele in your own newspaper, The Guardian. Discredited by Prof. Juan Cole at the University of Michigan.
In short, this type of loose use of dubious translations by US corporate news agencies only serve, as your colleague Jonathan Steele stated, "to strengthen western hawks". Is that your intention? Are you in favour of a war of agression on Iran? Or was it pure laziness? Could you please provide some kind of explanation? At very least, why was no balancing statement from the Iranian authorities sought? If the subject had been the UK, the US or Israel I can guarantee you that there would have been some sort of balancing statement.
I attach the relevant links for your perusal, as you really need to do your homework before making these kinds of irresponsible statements. I am also copying this letter to the Guardian Reader's Editor, Jonathan Steele and Prof. Juan Cole.
Ordinary citizens are beginning to get a little fed up with the constant media demonisation of Iran and its leaders so reminiscent of Operation Mass Appeal.
Yours Sincerely
Links:
Lost in translation: Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.
Juan Cole: "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."
Bill Scher: The Importance of Cole v. Hitchens
"Wiped Off The Map" - The Rumor of the Century
Caught Red-Handed: Media Backtracks on Iran's 'Threat'
Iranian denials:
Ahmadinejad misunderstood, says Iran
Iran denies wanting to "wipe Israel off the map"
Iran: 'We Won't Use Force'
Iranian FM: It isn't possible to remove a country from the map
"if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or we they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so." Iran's representative to the IAEA, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh CNN, 02 April 2006
Reply from Tait dated 15 July 2007:
In fact the original translation was provided by AFP, which is a French organisation, not a corporate American news agency. Your email implies orattributes motivations on my part which are beneath contempt and which Iwill not dignify with a response.
However, in short I will saying the following: the commmonly accepted translation no more or less implies the mass killing of people than the words spoken in Farsi; Mr Ahmadinejad is not an evil man but if he is"demonised", it is not by the media, but by his own voracious appetite forintemperate statements; this is a sterile and meaningless debate on semantics perpetuated by people with too much time on their hands.
Mr Ahmadinejad's exact words in Farsi: "As the Imam (Khomeini) said, theZionist occupier should be erased from the pages of history.";This has been commonly translated as saying Israel should be wiped off themap. No suprise there. It's a distinction without a difference. You can argue that this can be achieved either through a political process or annihilation and that the president meant the former. But that is a different issue. (However, this argument is weakened by some of his other statements: Example, "the Zionist regime is a rotten tree that could bedestroyed in a single storm").
Moreover, attributing the words to Khomeini is being misrepresented to suggest that Mr Ahmadinejad personally disagreed with it - which is clearly not the case. Rather, he was endorsing them.
My wife is Iranian. She assures me there is no difference in sense or spirit between the literal Farsi words and the commonly-stated English translation. She - along with other Iranians I have talked to - is adamant that the translation is acceptable, accurate and fair. As evidence,President Ahmadinejad has never quibbled with it. Indeed he is proud of it.
In future stories straying onto this area, I am serously considering using the original form of words, followed by the commonly-used translation in order to pre-empt complaints such as yours, which I believe are spurious and as much loaded with value judgements and political motivations that you are so content to attribute to others. The aim here, I think, is to trigger some sort of diversionary debate suggesting Mr Ahmadinejad has been systematically misrepresented by the western media. He hasn't - at least not by the Guardian. He believes passionately that Israel should cease to exist, by whatever means, and that the holocaust did not happen. He has stated these positions unambiguously on numerous occasions and in many different forums. I make no comment on the moral or intellectual merits of these convictions. I simply state, with the confidence borne of having been based in Iran for the past two-and-a-half years, that this is what he believes.
Robert Tait
Further reply from Robert Tait dated 16 July 2007:
Maybe you should have read this before you got on your high horse. And don't go looking for a mis-translation. I have the government-provided transcript.
Ahmadinejad speech inflames tension By Angus McDowall in Tehran Published: 15 April 2006
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a new attack on Israel yesterday, calling it "a rotten, dried tree" that could be knocked over by"a single storm".
The inflammatory remarks, similar to those which provoked a barrage of international condemnation in October, are likely to increase tensions after Iran's announcement on Tuesday that it had enriched uranium indefiance of UN Security Council demands.
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading towards annihilation," MrAhmadinejad told a Tehran conference on the Palestinian intifada, attended by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well asrepresentatives from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah."The existence of the Zionist regime is tantamount to an imposition of an unending and unrestrained threat so that none of the nations and Islamic countries of the region and beyond can feel secure from its threat," headded.
Earlier in the day Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of the clerical watchdog,Guardian Council, had told a Friday prayer meeting in Tehran that the US was "a decaying power" which Iran should not fear. Sermons are often usedby leading regime figures as a platform for public statements, often accompanied by calls of "death to America".
Ayatollah Jannati was responding to increased pressure from Washington on the country's nuclear programme. On Thursday, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran would face "consequences" for defying a Security Council demand that it halt all enrichment activity.
"One thing the Security Council has, and the International Atomic Energy Agency does not have, is the ability to compel, through Chapter Seven resolutions, member states of the UN to obey the will of the international system," she said. Under Chapter Seven the UN can impose sanctions or even military action.
A flying visit to Tehran on Thursday by the IAEA director general Mohammed El Baradei failed to secure a breakthrough in the stand-off, but the Egyptian said he was still hopeful and that both sides were committed to maintaining dialogue. Mr ElBaradei is due to report to the IAEA by the endo f April.
Next week Security Council members will discuss Iran at a meeting in Moscow. Russia was aggrieved by Iran's unexpected breakthrough on uranium enrichment because it undermined its own attempts at a compromise proposal. But it is still uncertain if Moscow will support sanctions.
China, which has also been cool on the use of sanctions against Iran, yesterday said it would send a delegation to Tehran to discuss the nuclear programme and stressed the importance of dialogue in defusing the crisis.
"We hope all parties will adopt a cool-headed approach," said the Vice Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. "Dialogue is better than confrontation."
UPDATE 04 AUGUST 2007:
My reply to Tait, dated 17 July 2007, which he has not yet answered (as at 04 August 2007) :
Dear Robert Tait,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. Although you are unlikely to believe me, I do apreciate it as I realise that you must be very busy.
You state that "the original translation was provided by AFP, which is a French organisation, not a corporate American news agency". .
I accept I should have said "Western corporate news agencies" instead of "US corporate news agencies" - a relatively minor point however.
But how then do you explain the NYT claims that they translated the speech themselves? They state specifically that it was their own Nazila Fathi who had translated the article:
"Published: October 30, 2005
This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry. The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency ( http://www.isnagency.com/). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi."
Also, both the BBC and Reuters claim that they translated the speech themselves. In fact, I emailed Reuters to ask them where they had got the translation and Paul Holmes, Editor, Political & General News, wrote back to me saying:
"Reuters has experienced, bilingual staff in our Tehran newsroom and we translated the quote ourselves from the IRNA dispatch in Farsi. We do not rely on IRNA dispatches in English since they arrive with a delay and are frequently shorter than the original Farsi dispatch. The IRNA English service also often paraphrases quotes. " (Paul Holmes, e-mail to David Sketchley 14 June 2006 - I will gladly forward you a copy if you wish).
The original Reuters report entitled "Iran president wants Israel "wiped off the map", was filed by Parisa Hafezi at 22:07 on 26 October 2005.
The BBC is on record as saying that the BBC Monitoring Service translated the speech themselves: "The comment was picked up and translated from the Farsi by the BBC's Monitoring Service."
You state "this is a sterile and meaningless debate on semantics perpetuated by people with too much time on their hands". The exact oposite is true as your colleague Jonathan Steele wrote in his Guardian piece (question: does Mr Steele have too much time on his hands? And Prof. Cole?):
"Does this quibbling over phrases matter? Yes, of course. Within days of the Ahmadinejad speech the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was calling for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations. Other foreign leaders have quoted the map phrase. The United States is piling pressure on its allies to be tough with Iran.
Let me give the last word to Juan Cole, with whom I began. "I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no."
You yourself have admitted to other readers: "I think the core of the problem here is the use to which the "off the map" phrase is being put by the right-wing in the US and Israel. For them it has become a sort of negative totem underpinning a specific political agenda. As such, it is becoming a problem for reporters on the ground like me." (E-mail to Tim Holmes).
By your own admission, you are aware that the right-wing in the US and Israel are using this mistranslation as a casus belli for at best regime change, at worst another war of aggression in Iran, plainly interfering in a sovereign state's internal affairs, yet you call this a sterile, meaningless debate. It is exactly this use which I think needs to be challenged, and which irresponsible use of the phrase only strengthens. It has already led to calls for Iran's expulsion from the UN, and on June 20, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the UN to charge Ahmadinejad with the crime of inciting genocide "because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel". It is also being used to support a unilateral attack on Iran.
You state "Mr Ahmadinejad's exact words in Farsi: "As the Imam (Khomeini) said, the Zionist occupier should be erased from the pages of history.";" Exact words? Nonsense. Could you kindly point out where the word "Zionist" appears in the original? Where is your translation of the word "rezhim-e" as in "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
[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).]
You state: "attributing the words to Khomeini is being misrepresented to suggest that Mr Ahmadinejad personally disagreed with it - which is clearly not the case. Rather, he was endorsing them" This is again nonsense and a straw man. No one, as far as I am aware, has ever suggested this apart from yourself. People have stated that Ahmadinejad was quoting Khomeini merely to put the sentence into context. And it is this taking the phrase out of context which is one of the main problems.
Arash Norouzi explains the context which you ignore:
"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."
Consequently there are no implications of mass killing at all. The crucial point is not the wipe away argument, but what is to be wiped away, the "regime". An example: Does the US recognise the " regime" in Cuba? No. Would it like the "regime" in Cuba to cease to exist? Of course. Does this mean the US wants to see Cuba " wiped off the map"? Of course not, although there is no doubt it would like to see Castro and his "regime" " wiped off the map"!
Both your colleague Jonathan Steele and Prof Cole have stated:
"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out."
"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. If Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac who just wants to kill Jews, then why are there 20,000 Jews in Iran with a member of parliament in Tehran? Couldn't he start at home if that was what he is really about? "
I believe that in fact you know this as you wrote back in December: "Mr Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and has said its inhabitants should go to Europe or Alaska", even though you state to me "He believes passionately that Israel should cease to exist, by whatever means"
You are not being consistent. Why should he suggest the inhabitants move to Europe if he wanted to annihilate them?
Prof Juan Cole sums it all up thus: "He is hostile to Israel. He'd like to see regime change (apparently via a referendum on the shape of the government ruling over geographical Palestine, in which all "original" residents of any religion would get a vote). Calling for a referendum on the dissolution of a government is not calling for genocide. Ahmadinejad also says he has no objection to a Jewish state in and of itself, he just thinks it should be located in, say, German territory set apart for the purpose, rather than displacing Palestinians from their homes. He may be saying unrealistic things; he is not advocating killing Jews qua Jews, or genocide...(Ahmadinejad) compares his call for an end to the Zionist regime ruling over Jerusalem to the Western call for the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Was Ronald Reagan inciting to genocide when he called for an end of the Soviet regime?"
Finally, you state "The aim here, I think, is to trigger some sort of diversionary debate suggesting Mr Ahmadinejad has been systematically misrepresented by the western media."
Yet the historical record shows that misrepresenting our 'enemies' leaders is just one part of a process designed to 'prepare public opinion' for war. Another part is falsifying a WMD crisis. Please watch the video linked to here:
And an irresponsible media which repeats this spin without challenge or scrutiny contributes to the misrepresentation and thus to the war.
You quoted an article in your second e-mail to me "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a new attack on Israel yesterday, calling it "a rotten, dried tree" that could be knocked over by "a single storm".
Again, taken alone, out of context you can make any statement sound threatening, thus misrepresenting the essence of what was being said. However taken in context we see that, in fact, it is quite the opposite (take note of the last sentence):
""Peace and harmonious relations can only be based on towhid, human dignity and justice. Oppressions and aggressions are not compatible with human dignity and justice.
The Zionist regime is a clear example of oppression and its fundamental nature represents actual and permanent threat. The very purpose behind the establishment of this regime was to put in place a permanent threat in the region. Therefore, the continued existence of this regime is premised on the persistence of this threat. It will have no existence without threat and aggression and it is not inherently capable to survive in an atmosphere of peace and tranquility. Even if it manages to remain in one square meter of the Palestinian land, it will continue to be a threat to the region.
"Take a good look at the bullying powers of the world. When it comes to supporting the Zionist regime, they recognize no red line and boundaries for justice, human rights and human dignity. The usurper Zionist regime is the meeting point of the injustices and brutalities of the corrupt bullying powers.
"Only a government chosen by the people can resolve the problem of Palestine and the people of the region. The right to govern belongs to all people of Palestine and they must decide the governing model of their choice and elect their own officials.
"For this purpose, there must be an opportunity for all genuine Palestinians; be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews, residing in Palestine or in Diaspora, to participate in a referendum to decide the political system of their choice and elect their leaders.
"In other words, the only rational way which is compatible with the generally recognized international norms is holding of a referendum for all genuine Palestinians. " The supporters of the Zionist regime prefer to remain silent in face of this reasonable proposition. But I tell them that regardless of what they desire, the Zionist regime is falling apart .
"The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of faith and desire for freedom are flowering. "The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm .
Today even the inhabitants of the occupied Palestine, especially the African and Asian settlers are living in ain, poverty and discontent. "I tell the governments supporting the Zionist regime to open the doors to the prisons in the occupied Palestine and allow the refugees and displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland and summon the usurpers of the Palestinian lands.
"If you still consider yourself indebted to them, then find a proper place for them in your own territories, if not call upon them to return to their countries of origin to live like their forefathers."
My only concern is that another illegal war is on the cards, I am doing what little I can to prevent it.
Yours Sincerely
Dear Robert Tait,
In Thursday's article 'Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel' you state: "Mr Ahmadinejad had earlier said that Israel should be "wiped off the map"."
Why do you choose to perpetuate this discredited lie? Discredited by your own colleague, Jonathan Steele in your own newspaper, The Guardian. Discredited by Prof. Juan Cole at the University of Michigan.
In short, this type of loose use of dubious translations by US corporate news agencies only serve, as your colleague Jonathan Steele stated, "to strengthen western hawks". Is that your intention? Are you in favour of a war of agression on Iran? Or was it pure laziness? Could you please provide some kind of explanation? At very least, why was no balancing statement from the Iranian authorities sought? If the subject had been the UK, the US or Israel I can guarantee you that there would have been some sort of balancing statement.
I attach the relevant links for your perusal, as you really need to do your homework before making these kinds of irresponsible statements. I am also copying this letter to the Guardian Reader's Editor, Jonathan Steele and Prof. Juan Cole.
Ordinary citizens are beginning to get a little fed up with the constant media demonisation of Iran and its leaders so reminiscent of Operation Mass Appeal.
Yours Sincerely
Links:
Lost in translation: Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.
Juan Cole: "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."
Bill Scher: The Importance of Cole v. Hitchens
"Wiped Off The Map" - The Rumor of the Century
Caught Red-Handed: Media Backtracks on Iran's 'Threat'
Iranian denials:
Ahmadinejad misunderstood, says Iran
Iran denies wanting to "wipe Israel off the map"
Iran: 'We Won't Use Force'
Iranian FM: It isn't possible to remove a country from the map
"if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or we they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so." Iran's representative to the IAEA, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh CNN, 02 April 2006
Reply from Tait dated 15 July 2007:
In fact the original translation was provided by AFP, which is a French organisation, not a corporate American news agency. Your email implies orattributes motivations on my part which are beneath contempt and which Iwill not dignify with a response.
However, in short I will saying the following: the commmonly accepted translation no more or less implies the mass killing of people than the words spoken in Farsi; Mr Ahmadinejad is not an evil man but if he is"demonised", it is not by the media, but by his own voracious appetite forintemperate statements; this is a sterile and meaningless debate on semantics perpetuated by people with too much time on their hands.
Mr Ahmadinejad's exact words in Farsi: "As the Imam (Khomeini) said, theZionist occupier should be erased from the pages of history.";This has been commonly translated as saying Israel should be wiped off themap. No suprise there. It's a distinction without a difference. You can argue that this can be achieved either through a political process or annihilation and that the president meant the former. But that is a different issue. (However, this argument is weakened by some of his other statements: Example, "the Zionist regime is a rotten tree that could bedestroyed in a single storm").
Moreover, attributing the words to Khomeini is being misrepresented to suggest that Mr Ahmadinejad personally disagreed with it - which is clearly not the case. Rather, he was endorsing them.
My wife is Iranian. She assures me there is no difference in sense or spirit between the literal Farsi words and the commonly-stated English translation. She - along with other Iranians I have talked to - is adamant that the translation is acceptable, accurate and fair. As evidence,President Ahmadinejad has never quibbled with it. Indeed he is proud of it.
In future stories straying onto this area, I am serously considering using the original form of words, followed by the commonly-used translation in order to pre-empt complaints such as yours, which I believe are spurious and as much loaded with value judgements and political motivations that you are so content to attribute to others. The aim here, I think, is to trigger some sort of diversionary debate suggesting Mr Ahmadinejad has been systematically misrepresented by the western media. He hasn't - at least not by the Guardian. He believes passionately that Israel should cease to exist, by whatever means, and that the holocaust did not happen. He has stated these positions unambiguously on numerous occasions and in many different forums. I make no comment on the moral or intellectual merits of these convictions. I simply state, with the confidence borne of having been based in Iran for the past two-and-a-half years, that this is what he believes.
Robert Tait
Further reply from Robert Tait dated 16 July 2007:
Maybe you should have read this before you got on your high horse. And don't go looking for a mis-translation. I have the government-provided transcript.
Ahmadinejad speech inflames tension By Angus McDowall in Tehran Published: 15 April 2006
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a new attack on Israel yesterday, calling it "a rotten, dried tree" that could be knocked over by"a single storm".
The inflammatory remarks, similar to those which provoked a barrage of international condemnation in October, are likely to increase tensions after Iran's announcement on Tuesday that it had enriched uranium indefiance of UN Security Council demands.
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading towards annihilation," MrAhmadinejad told a Tehran conference on the Palestinian intifada, attended by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well asrepresentatives from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah."The existence of the Zionist regime is tantamount to an imposition of an unending and unrestrained threat so that none of the nations and Islamic countries of the region and beyond can feel secure from its threat," headded.
Earlier in the day Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of the clerical watchdog,Guardian Council, had told a Friday prayer meeting in Tehran that the US was "a decaying power" which Iran should not fear. Sermons are often usedby leading regime figures as a platform for public statements, often accompanied by calls of "death to America".
Ayatollah Jannati was responding to increased pressure from Washington on the country's nuclear programme. On Thursday, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran would face "consequences" for defying a Security Council demand that it halt all enrichment activity.
"One thing the Security Council has, and the International Atomic Energy Agency does not have, is the ability to compel, through Chapter Seven resolutions, member states of the UN to obey the will of the international system," she said. Under Chapter Seven the UN can impose sanctions or even military action.
A flying visit to Tehran on Thursday by the IAEA director general Mohammed El Baradei failed to secure a breakthrough in the stand-off, but the Egyptian said he was still hopeful and that both sides were committed to maintaining dialogue. Mr ElBaradei is due to report to the IAEA by the endo f April.
Next week Security Council members will discuss Iran at a meeting in Moscow. Russia was aggrieved by Iran's unexpected breakthrough on uranium enrichment because it undermined its own attempts at a compromise proposal. But it is still uncertain if Moscow will support sanctions.
China, which has also been cool on the use of sanctions against Iran, yesterday said it would send a delegation to Tehran to discuss the nuclear programme and stressed the importance of dialogue in defusing the crisis.
"We hope all parties will adopt a cool-headed approach," said the Vice Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. "Dialogue is better than confrontation."
UPDATE 04 AUGUST 2007:
My reply to Tait, dated 17 July 2007, which he has not yet answered (as at 04 August 2007) :
Dear Robert Tait,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. Although you are unlikely to believe me, I do apreciate it as I realise that you must be very busy.
You state that "the original translation was provided by AFP, which is a French organisation, not a corporate American news agency". .
I accept I should have said "Western corporate news agencies" instead of "US corporate news agencies" - a relatively minor point however.
But how then do you explain the NYT claims that they translated the speech themselves? They state specifically that it was their own Nazila Fathi who had translated the article:
"Published: October 30, 2005
This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry. The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency ( http://www.isnagency.com/). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi."
Also, both the BBC and Reuters claim that they translated the speech themselves. In fact, I emailed Reuters to ask them where they had got the translation and Paul Holmes, Editor, Political & General News, wrote back to me saying:
"Reuters has experienced, bilingual staff in our Tehran newsroom and we translated the quote ourselves from the IRNA dispatch in Farsi. We do not rely on IRNA dispatches in English since they arrive with a delay and are frequently shorter than the original Farsi dispatch. The IRNA English service also often paraphrases quotes. " (Paul Holmes, e-mail to David Sketchley 14 June 2006 - I will gladly forward you a copy if you wish).
The original Reuters report entitled "Iran president wants Israel "wiped off the map", was filed by Parisa Hafezi at 22:07 on 26 October 2005.
The BBC is on record as saying that the BBC Monitoring Service translated the speech themselves: "The comment was picked up and translated from the Farsi by the BBC's Monitoring Service."
You state "this is a sterile and meaningless debate on semantics perpetuated by people with too much time on their hands". The exact oposite is true as your colleague Jonathan Steele wrote in his Guardian piece (question: does Mr Steele have too much time on his hands? And Prof. Cole?):
"Does this quibbling over phrases matter? Yes, of course. Within days of the Ahmadinejad speech the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was calling for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations. Other foreign leaders have quoted the map phrase. The United States is piling pressure on its allies to be tough with Iran.
Let me give the last word to Juan Cole, with whom I began. "I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no."
You yourself have admitted to other readers: "I think the core of the problem here is the use to which the "off the map" phrase is being put by the right-wing in the US and Israel. For them it has become a sort of negative totem underpinning a specific political agenda. As such, it is becoming a problem for reporters on the ground like me." (E-mail to Tim Holmes).
By your own admission, you are aware that the right-wing in the US and Israel are using this mistranslation as a casus belli for at best regime change, at worst another war of aggression in Iran, plainly interfering in a sovereign state's internal affairs, yet you call this a sterile, meaningless debate. It is exactly this use which I think needs to be challenged, and which irresponsible use of the phrase only strengthens. It has already led to calls for Iran's expulsion from the UN, and on June 20, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the UN to charge Ahmadinejad with the crime of inciting genocide "because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel". It is also being used to support a unilateral attack on Iran.
You state "Mr Ahmadinejad's exact words in Farsi: "As the Imam (Khomeini) said, the Zionist occupier should be erased from the pages of history.";" Exact words? Nonsense. Could you kindly point out where the word "Zionist" appears in the original? Where is your translation of the word "rezhim-e" as in "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
[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).]
You state: "attributing the words to Khomeini is being misrepresented to suggest that Mr Ahmadinejad personally disagreed with it - which is clearly not the case. Rather, he was endorsing them" This is again nonsense and a straw man. No one, as far as I am aware, has ever suggested this apart from yourself. People have stated that Ahmadinejad was quoting Khomeini merely to put the sentence into context. And it is this taking the phrase out of context which is one of the main problems.
Arash Norouzi explains the context which you ignore:
"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."
Consequently there are no implications of mass killing at all. The crucial point is not the wipe away argument, but what is to be wiped away, the "regime". An example: Does the US recognise the " regime" in Cuba? No. Would it like the "regime" in Cuba to cease to exist? Of course. Does this mean the US wants to see Cuba " wiped off the map"? Of course not, although there is no doubt it would like to see Castro and his "regime" " wiped off the map"!
Both your colleague Jonathan Steele and Prof Cole have stated:
"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favour Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out."
"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. If Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac who just wants to kill Jews, then why are there 20,000 Jews in Iran with a member of parliament in Tehran? Couldn't he start at home if that was what he is really about? "
I believe that in fact you know this as you wrote back in December: "Mr Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and has said its inhabitants should go to Europe or Alaska", even though you state to me "He believes passionately that Israel should cease to exist, by whatever means"
You are not being consistent. Why should he suggest the inhabitants move to Europe if he wanted to annihilate them?
Prof Juan Cole sums it all up thus: "He is hostile to Israel. He'd like to see regime change (apparently via a referendum on the shape of the government ruling over geographical Palestine, in which all "original" residents of any religion would get a vote). Calling for a referendum on the dissolution of a government is not calling for genocide. Ahmadinejad also says he has no objection to a Jewish state in and of itself, he just thinks it should be located in, say, German territory set apart for the purpose, rather than displacing Palestinians from their homes. He may be saying unrealistic things; he is not advocating killing Jews qua Jews, or genocide...(Ahmadinejad) compares his call for an end to the Zionist regime ruling over Jerusalem to the Western call for the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Was Ronald Reagan inciting to genocide when he called for an end of the Soviet regime?"
Finally, you state "The aim here, I think, is to trigger some sort of diversionary debate suggesting Mr Ahmadinejad has been systematically misrepresented by the western media."
Yet the historical record shows that misrepresenting our 'enemies' leaders is just one part of a process designed to 'prepare public opinion' for war. Another part is falsifying a WMD crisis. Please watch the video linked to here:
And an irresponsible media which repeats this spin without challenge or scrutiny contributes to the misrepresentation and thus to the war.
You quoted an article in your second e-mail to me "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a new attack on Israel yesterday, calling it "a rotten, dried tree" that could be knocked over by "a single storm".
Again, taken alone, out of context you can make any statement sound threatening, thus misrepresenting the essence of what was being said. However taken in context we see that, in fact, it is quite the opposite (take note of the last sentence):
""Peace and harmonious relations can only be based on towhid, human dignity and justice. Oppressions and aggressions are not compatible with human dignity and justice.
The Zionist regime is a clear example of oppression and its fundamental nature represents actual and permanent threat. The very purpose behind the establishment of this regime was to put in place a permanent threat in the region. Therefore, the continued existence of this regime is premised on the persistence of this threat. It will have no existence without threat and aggression and it is not inherently capable to survive in an atmosphere of peace and tranquility. Even if it manages to remain in one square meter of the Palestinian land, it will continue to be a threat to the region.
"Take a good look at the bullying powers of the world. When it comes to supporting the Zionist regime, they recognize no red line and boundaries for justice, human rights and human dignity. The usurper Zionist regime is the meeting point of the injustices and brutalities of the corrupt bullying powers.
"Only a government chosen by the people can resolve the problem of Palestine and the people of the region. The right to govern belongs to all people of Palestine and they must decide the governing model of their choice and elect their own officials.
"For this purpose, there must be an opportunity for all genuine Palestinians; be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews, residing in Palestine or in Diaspora, to participate in a referendum to decide the political system of their choice and elect their leaders.
"In other words, the only rational way which is compatible with the generally recognized international norms is holding of a referendum for all genuine Palestinians. " The supporters of the Zionist regime prefer to remain silent in face of this reasonable proposition. But I tell them that regardless of what they desire, the Zionist regime is falling apart .
"The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of faith and desire for freedom are flowering. "The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm .
Today even the inhabitants of the occupied Palestine, especially the African and Asian settlers are living in ain, poverty and discontent. "I tell the governments supporting the Zionist regime to open the doors to the prisons in the occupied Palestine and allow the refugees and displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland and summon the usurpers of the Palestinian lands.
"If you still consider yourself indebted to them, then find a proper place for them in your own territories, if not call upon them to return to their countries of origin to live like their forefathers."
My only concern is that another illegal war is on the cards, I am doing what little I can to prevent it.
Yours Sincerely
17 June 2007
The Palestinian Contras - The US war on Middle Eastern democracy
Anyone reading the majority of international press reports on what is happening in Palestine could be forgiven for thinking Hamas had instigated a coup d'état against the Al-Fatah government of Abbas.
However, in the middle of so much spin and counterspin, Israeli and US propaganda, its important to take a step back and look with a clear head at exactly what has happened over the last few months.
Peter Beaumont writes in today's Observer:
"After years of being hectored to hold elections and adopt democratic norms, a year and a half ago Palestinians duly elected Hamas with 44 per cent of the vote, ahead of Fatah on 41 per cent...It was a good election, as former US President Jimmy Carter observed at the time, a free, fair and accurate expression of the desires of a Palestinian people sick of the uselessness, corruption and gangsterism of Fatah. The problem was that it didn't quite reflect the wishes of Washington and the international community...there was no attempt at engagement, in the way that Fatah, whose militants have perpetrated scores of attacks, has been engaged with for years."
So what did Abbas, Washington and the international community do?
They conspired with Israel and the intelligence services of several Arab states to overthrow and weaken Hamas, while imposing a collective punishment on the Palestinian people for having the nerve to vote the 'wrong' way. They funnelled "weapons and tens of millions of dollars to unaccountable militias, particularly the "Preventive Security Force" headed by Gaza 'warlord' Mohammad Dahlan, a close ally of Israel and the United States and the Abbas-affiliated "Presidential Guard."
Ali Abunimah, @ The Electronic Intifada, :
"US Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams -- who helped divert money to the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s and who was convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal -- has spearheaded the effort to set up these Palestinian Contras. (This background has been extensively detailed in a number of articles published by The Electronic Intifada in recent months). Abrams is also notorious for helping to cover up massacres and atrocities committed against civilians in El Salvador by US-backed militias and death squads."
These anti-democratic actions have been severely criticised by the UN's Middle East envoy, Álvaro de Soto, a Peruvian diplomat who worked for the UN for 25 years in El Salvador, Cyprus and Western Sahara:
"At the time, and indeed until the Mecca Agreement a year later, the US clearly pushed for a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas - so much so that, a week before Mecca, the US envoy declared twice in an envoys meeting in Washington how much "I like this violence" referring to the near-civil war that was erupting in Gaza in which civilians were being regularly killed and injured, because "it means that other Palestinians are resisting Hamas"."
He went further stating that the international boycott of the Palestinians, introduced after Hamas won elections last year, was "at best extremely short-sighted" and had "devastating consequences" for the Palestinian people.
He also confirmed that it was because of pressure from the United States that Abbas refused Hamas' initial invitation to form a "national unity government." De Soto details that Abbas advisers actively aided and abetted the Israeli-US-European Union aid cutoff and siege of the Palestinians under occupation, which led to massively increased poverty for millions of people. These advisors engaged with the United States in a "plot" to "bring about the untimely demise of the [Palestinian Authority] government led by Hamas," de Soto wrote.
This fact has been recognised by even the conservative UK Daily Telegraph "After the Islamists were elected last year, the world sought to isolate their government and strengthen the Fatah party losers." Anti-democratic.
Peter Beaumont asks some pertinent questions:
"Now, after the months of financial embargo of the Hamas-led government by the US and Europe, after the funding and propping up of Fatah's President Mahmoud Abbas, after the slow, crushing squeeze on Palestinian society that encouraged its social disintegration, what have we got? Virtual civil war in Gaza, the polarisation of Palestinian society, a government dissolved by decree, and a new Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, appointed with the explicit blessing of the US.
Let us remind ourselves of the democratic credentials of Fayyad, an intelligent and impressive economist, generally regarded as untouched by corruption. In any other circumstances he might be ideal. But in last year's elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council - the election Hamas won - Fayyad's list secured just 2.4 per cent of votes. Not exactly a popular guy to lead a society in collapse. That is not his only problem. Analysts of the Palestinian political scene don't rate Fayyad's lack of democratic credentials simply on his feeble showing in the elections.
They'll tell you he is largely unknown to most Palestinians; that he has no party machinery to support him; and that his running mate Hanan Ashrawi is unpopular with many Palestinians.
The reality is that the only people who are really behind Salam Fayyad are the European and US diplomats who have long sung his praises behind the scenes to any journalist prepared to listen. So yesterday President Bush and the other members of the Quartet got what they wanted. Abbas trooped dutifully in to see the US consul-general in Jerusalem with Mohammed Dahlan, the man widely credited with beginning the cycle of violence in Gaza, in tow. And when they emerged, the boycott of US monies to the Palestinian government had been lifted.
It is hard not to be cynical. Palestinian society was squeezed until it hurt - punished as a whole for voting for the wrong party. And when the inevitable explosion occurred last week, Abbas finally fired Hamas, as the US has been encouraging him to do amid his months of dithering.
So which was the real coup? Hamas's bloody attack on the violent gangsters allied to Fatah who have terrorised Gaza for a year? Or Abbas's unconstitutional moves yesterday with America's backing?"
Israeli-US propaganda, led by their corrupt puppet Abbas, has moved quickly and is trying to describe what is happening as a Hamas-led coup d'état which is being encourgaed by Iran and Syria.
"Sources in Ramallah said Saturday night that a plan being put together in Abbas' offices calls for continuing the steadfast struggle against what he calls Hamas' "military coup" in the Gaza Strip."
One of their most vociferous conduits for propaganda, the Sunday Telegraph, states today that:
"The exiled head of Palestinian intelligence in Gaza has told The Sunday Telegraph that the takeover by Hamas last week was carried out under orders from Iran, in preparation for a wider conflict this summer. Colonel Bahaa Balusha, the Fatah-loyal intelligence co-ordinator who fled in fear of his life, said his troops were out-gunned by Hamas forces carrying sophisticated artillery supplied to them by Islamist forces looking for a toe-hold on the borders of Israel.
"The situation in Gaza is very difficult. It is an ugly military coup done in an unorganised terrorist manner," he said, adding that international pressure had led to a three-way axis between Iran, Syria and Hamas. "They must instigate some kind of war in Gaza, and they prepared for this war, in terms of training, in Iran and Syria and Lebanon. They want to create a party against Israel, a party with Iran. Col Balusha, who has escaped several assassination attempts including one in which his three children were slaughtered on their way to school, said he warned Mr Abbas months ago that the armed wing of Hamas was working on "an Iranian agenda". This involved a wider conflict in the region, he said."
However, as the Guardian shows, there are other more realistic interpretations:
"The killing that would end with more than 100 dead and as many injured, started last Sunday like any other broken ceasefire in Gaza with accusations on both sides. It would end with an offer from Hamas to continue working with Abbas as usual. Which leaves what occurred last week as more like an episode from the Godfather films than a coup (albeit one by an elected government) - a violent settling of scores."
The Quartet and Israel have also moved quickly to back their puppet Abbas in his unconstitutional and undemocratic takeover of the Palestinian government, while Olmert has admitted that he will "work vigorously to take advantage" of the situation.
We also see that now the corrupt Israeli puppets along with the coward Dahlan have fled Gaza, we can expect to see more war crimes being committed by the Israelis:
"ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there. According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.
The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings...A source close to Barak said that Israel could not tolerate an aggressive “Hamastan” on its border and an attack seemed unavoidable. “The question is not if but how and when,” he said. "
How many innocent civilians will be massacred?
However, in the middle of so much spin and counterspin, Israeli and US propaganda, its important to take a step back and look with a clear head at exactly what has happened over the last few months.
Peter Beaumont writes in today's Observer:
"After years of being hectored to hold elections and adopt democratic norms, a year and a half ago Palestinians duly elected Hamas with 44 per cent of the vote, ahead of Fatah on 41 per cent...It was a good election, as former US President Jimmy Carter observed at the time, a free, fair and accurate expression of the desires of a Palestinian people sick of the uselessness, corruption and gangsterism of Fatah. The problem was that it didn't quite reflect the wishes of Washington and the international community...there was no attempt at engagement, in the way that Fatah, whose militants have perpetrated scores of attacks, has been engaged with for years."
So what did Abbas, Washington and the international community do?
They conspired with Israel and the intelligence services of several Arab states to overthrow and weaken Hamas, while imposing a collective punishment on the Palestinian people for having the nerve to vote the 'wrong' way. They funnelled "weapons and tens of millions of dollars to unaccountable militias, particularly the "Preventive Security Force" headed by Gaza 'warlord' Mohammad Dahlan, a close ally of Israel and the United States and the Abbas-affiliated "Presidential Guard."
Ali Abunimah, @ The Electronic Intifada, :
"US Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams -- who helped divert money to the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s and who was convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal -- has spearheaded the effort to set up these Palestinian Contras. (This background has been extensively detailed in a number of articles published by The Electronic Intifada in recent months). Abrams is also notorious for helping to cover up massacres and atrocities committed against civilians in El Salvador by US-backed militias and death squads."
These anti-democratic actions have been severely criticised by the UN's Middle East envoy, Álvaro de Soto, a Peruvian diplomat who worked for the UN for 25 years in El Salvador, Cyprus and Western Sahara:
"At the time, and indeed until the Mecca Agreement a year later, the US clearly pushed for a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas - so much so that, a week before Mecca, the US envoy declared twice in an envoys meeting in Washington how much "I like this violence" referring to the near-civil war that was erupting in Gaza in which civilians were being regularly killed and injured, because "it means that other Palestinians are resisting Hamas"."
He went further stating that the international boycott of the Palestinians, introduced after Hamas won elections last year, was "at best extremely short-sighted" and had "devastating consequences" for the Palestinian people.
He also confirmed that it was because of pressure from the United States that Abbas refused Hamas' initial invitation to form a "national unity government." De Soto details that Abbas advisers actively aided and abetted the Israeli-US-European Union aid cutoff and siege of the Palestinians under occupation, which led to massively increased poverty for millions of people. These advisors engaged with the United States in a "plot" to "bring about the untimely demise of the [Palestinian Authority] government led by Hamas," de Soto wrote.
This fact has been recognised by even the conservative UK Daily Telegraph "After the Islamists were elected last year, the world sought to isolate their government and strengthen the Fatah party losers." Anti-democratic.
Peter Beaumont asks some pertinent questions:
"Now, after the months of financial embargo of the Hamas-led government by the US and Europe, after the funding and propping up of Fatah's President Mahmoud Abbas, after the slow, crushing squeeze on Palestinian society that encouraged its social disintegration, what have we got? Virtual civil war in Gaza, the polarisation of Palestinian society, a government dissolved by decree, and a new Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, appointed with the explicit blessing of the US.
Let us remind ourselves of the democratic credentials of Fayyad, an intelligent and impressive economist, generally regarded as untouched by corruption. In any other circumstances he might be ideal. But in last year's elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council - the election Hamas won - Fayyad's list secured just 2.4 per cent of votes. Not exactly a popular guy to lead a society in collapse. That is not his only problem. Analysts of the Palestinian political scene don't rate Fayyad's lack of democratic credentials simply on his feeble showing in the elections.
They'll tell you he is largely unknown to most Palestinians; that he has no party machinery to support him; and that his running mate Hanan Ashrawi is unpopular with many Palestinians.
The reality is that the only people who are really behind Salam Fayyad are the European and US diplomats who have long sung his praises behind the scenes to any journalist prepared to listen. So yesterday President Bush and the other members of the Quartet got what they wanted. Abbas trooped dutifully in to see the US consul-general in Jerusalem with Mohammed Dahlan, the man widely credited with beginning the cycle of violence in Gaza, in tow. And when they emerged, the boycott of US monies to the Palestinian government had been lifted.
It is hard not to be cynical. Palestinian society was squeezed until it hurt - punished as a whole for voting for the wrong party. And when the inevitable explosion occurred last week, Abbas finally fired Hamas, as the US has been encouraging him to do amid his months of dithering.
So which was the real coup? Hamas's bloody attack on the violent gangsters allied to Fatah who have terrorised Gaza for a year? Or Abbas's unconstitutional moves yesterday with America's backing?"
Israeli-US propaganda, led by their corrupt puppet Abbas, has moved quickly and is trying to describe what is happening as a Hamas-led coup d'état which is being encourgaed by Iran and Syria.
"Sources in Ramallah said Saturday night that a plan being put together in Abbas' offices calls for continuing the steadfast struggle against what he calls Hamas' "military coup" in the Gaza Strip."
One of their most vociferous conduits for propaganda, the Sunday Telegraph, states today that:
"The exiled head of Palestinian intelligence in Gaza has told The Sunday Telegraph that the takeover by Hamas last week was carried out under orders from Iran, in preparation for a wider conflict this summer. Colonel Bahaa Balusha, the Fatah-loyal intelligence co-ordinator who fled in fear of his life, said his troops were out-gunned by Hamas forces carrying sophisticated artillery supplied to them by Islamist forces looking for a toe-hold on the borders of Israel.
"The situation in Gaza is very difficult. It is an ugly military coup done in an unorganised terrorist manner," he said, adding that international pressure had led to a three-way axis between Iran, Syria and Hamas. "They must instigate some kind of war in Gaza, and they prepared for this war, in terms of training, in Iran and Syria and Lebanon. They want to create a party against Israel, a party with Iran. Col Balusha, who has escaped several assassination attempts including one in which his three children were slaughtered on their way to school, said he warned Mr Abbas months ago that the armed wing of Hamas was working on "an Iranian agenda". This involved a wider conflict in the region, he said."
However, as the Guardian shows, there are other more realistic interpretations:
"The killing that would end with more than 100 dead and as many injured, started last Sunday like any other broken ceasefire in Gaza with accusations on both sides. It would end with an offer from Hamas to continue working with Abbas as usual. Which leaves what occurred last week as more like an episode from the Godfather films than a coup (albeit one by an elected government) - a violent settling of scores."
The Quartet and Israel have also moved quickly to back their puppet Abbas in his unconstitutional and undemocratic takeover of the Palestinian government, while Olmert has admitted that he will "work vigorously to take advantage" of the situation.
We also see that now the corrupt Israeli puppets along with the coward Dahlan have fled Gaza, we can expect to see more war crimes being committed by the Israelis:
"ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there. According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.
The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings...A source close to Barak said that Israel could not tolerate an aggressive “Hamastan” on its border and an attack seemed unavoidable. “The question is not if but how and when,” he said. "
How many innocent civilians will be massacred?
19 May 2007
The Art of Selling War
Directed by Josh Rushing, a veteran Marine Corps media spokesman, "SPIN: The Art of Selling War" is an investigative documentary that looks at the standard justification for going to war by the American administrations of past and present.
30 April 2007
12 April 2007
The Truth About Syria By Liz Cheney.
Cheney states: "On Dec. 12, 2005, the United Nations issued a report concluding that it was unlikely that Hariris assassination could have been carried out without Syrias knowledge" and "These murders are intended to terrorize Syrias opponents into silence."
Firstly, she prefers to ignore the fact that the lead investigator of the UN report was in fact seriously compromised and had to resign after it was fond that his two main witnesses had been bribed and blackmailed.
Secondly, she also prefers to ignore the 'other' 'cui bono' factor in the Hariri killing. Her statement that "These murders are intended to terrorize Syrias opponents into silence" could also be interpreted as who would gain if the blame was placed at Syrias door? Answer: the US and Israel. And we all know of the history of covert meddling in the affairs of other sovereign countries by the CIA and Mossad...their use of false flag terrorism to achieve their aims.
Thirdly, she completely ignores her own father's funding of 'al Qaeda-Tied Groups' in Lebanon!
Finally her parting comment "Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Damascus while they kill Lebanese democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful" is a cold excercise in supreme cynicism, considering Mr Bush's continuing diplomacy with Colombia while that country's intelligence service collaborated with paramilitary death squads to liquidate union activists - also democrats.
Firstly, she prefers to ignore the fact that the lead investigator of the UN report was in fact seriously compromised and had to resign after it was fond that his two main witnesses had been bribed and blackmailed.
Secondly, she also prefers to ignore the 'other' 'cui bono' factor in the Hariri killing. Her statement that "These murders are intended to terrorize Syrias opponents into silence" could also be interpreted as who would gain if the blame was placed at Syrias door? Answer: the US and Israel. And we all know of the history of covert meddling in the affairs of other sovereign countries by the CIA and Mossad...their use of false flag terrorism to achieve their aims.
Thirdly, she completely ignores her own father's funding of 'al Qaeda-Tied Groups' in Lebanon!
Finally her parting comment "Conducting diplomacy with the regime in Damascus while they kill Lebanese democrats is not only irresponsible, it is shameful" is a cold excercise in supreme cynicism, considering Mr Bush's continuing diplomacy with Colombia while that country's intelligence service collaborated with paramilitary death squads to liquidate union activists - also democrats.
Offical Complaint to the BBC
The coverage afforded by the BBC of Tony Blair's claims that roadside bombs in Iraq may have been provided by Iran is a conscious propaganda effort, in particular after the deaths of 4 British soldiers in Basra.
You are willing to give a proven liar unwarranted credibility, while ignoring the facts that contradict his 'views'. This is called bias.
1. Tony Blair has presented no proof, none at all.
2. No Iranians have been caught smuggling arms into Iraq.
3. The chief analyst of a private securty consulting firm presented evidence in Jane's Intelligence Review that Iraqi Shiites have manufactured both the components for "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) and the complete EFPs.
4. A US military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC recently stated: "There's no evidence that these are supplied by Iran. A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network. What works in one country gets known elsewhere."
5. Reuters reported just yesterday that according to the US military spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Scott Bleichwehl, troops "discovered a factory that produced “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs)" in Diwaniya.
6. According to the Independent, we are now asked to believe that, while before the war Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device, now the Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.
7.In the same Reuters report "a Western explosives expert in Iraq said it appeared from photographs of the crater that the blast had been caused by a commercial landmine buried in the road, not by an EFP"
8. The Sunni insurgency in Iraq is deeply hostile to Iran.
With all the facts pointing in the opposite direction to Tony Blair's 'views', it does seem, at the very least surprising, that the BBC is willing to continue this charade and provide media cover for this individual's propagandistic lies and affording him overwhelming bias.
E-mailed 08 April 2007
Awaiting reply.
In spite of this complaint the BBC insists on reporting US propaganda:
Last Updated: Wednesday, 11 April 2007, 18:50 GMT 19:50 UK
US says Iran arming Sunni groups
BBC News
You are willing to give a proven liar unwarranted credibility, while ignoring the facts that contradict his 'views'. This is called bias.
1. Tony Blair has presented no proof, none at all.
2. No Iranians have been caught smuggling arms into Iraq.
3. The chief analyst of a private securty consulting firm presented evidence in Jane's Intelligence Review that Iraqi Shiites have manufactured both the components for "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) and the complete EFPs.
4. A US military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC recently stated: "There's no evidence that these are supplied by Iran. A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network. What works in one country gets known elsewhere."
5. Reuters reported just yesterday that according to the US military spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Scott Bleichwehl, troops "discovered a factory that produced “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs)" in Diwaniya.
6. According to the Independent, we are now asked to believe that, while before the war Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device, now the Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.
7.In the same Reuters report "a Western explosives expert in Iraq said it appeared from photographs of the crater that the blast had been caused by a commercial landmine buried in the road, not by an EFP"
8. The Sunni insurgency in Iraq is deeply hostile to Iran.
With all the facts pointing in the opposite direction to Tony Blair's 'views', it does seem, at the very least surprising, that the BBC is willing to continue this charade and provide media cover for this individual's propagandistic lies and affording him overwhelming bias.
E-mailed 08 April 2007
Awaiting reply.
In spite of this complaint the BBC insists on reporting US propaganda:
Last Updated: Wednesday, 11 April 2007, 18:50 GMT 19:50 UK
US says Iran arming Sunni groups
BBC News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
