"Israel must be wiped off the map"-was Ahmadinejad misquoted

[Moonlight Graham]

The phrase "Israel must be wiped off the map" has been attributed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and has been used by politicians and the media for various reasons, including reasons to be concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

However, did he actually say those words?

Consider this article by Arash Norouzi:

According to legend, Iran's president has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made.

The Actual Quote:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."

The Proof:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Ok, so how or why did this happen?

The Origin:

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.

The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

Interesting.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[M.Dancer]

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time or wiped off the map pretty much means the same thing....good thing they are working towards creating a device that relies on the energy of the cosmos to do the time wiping thing....

[Moonlight Graham]

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time or wiped off the map pretty much means the same thing....good thing they are working towards creating a device that relies on the energy of the cosmos to do the time wiping thing....

You don't see a difference between "regime must vanish from the page of time" and "Israel must be wiped off the map?". The latter is much more aggressive and less politically targeted. Though if Iran itself did the translating, then they probably mean the latter as well.

[kimmy]

You don't see a difference between "regime must vanish from the page of time" and "Israel must be wiped off the map?". The latter is much more aggressive and less politically targeted. Though if Iran itself did the translating, then they probably mean the latter as well.

I don't think anybody thought he wanted the land-mass of Israel to be literally removed from the globe, so I'm not sure what the big distinction being made here is. Are we supposed to assume there's some interpretation of "regime" that makes calling for it to "vanish from the pages of history" less threatening?

Norouzi states:

Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

and adds...

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.

...so while Norouzi may be quibbling with the translation, he is not disputing that Ahmadinejad was talking of ending Israel as a nation.

-k

[M.Dancer]

I think the difference might be described as the difference between threatening to knock someones lights out over mopping the floor with someones face...

[Peter F]

This reminds me of the Krushchev line: We will bury you!

Many things get lost in translation - or found.

I think both Ahmadinejad and Krushchev meant that their regimes would outlast Zionism and Capitalism.

...but then I have a bad habit of thinking well of folks...

[Argus]

This reminds me of the Krushchev line: We will bury you!

Many things get lost in translation - or found.

I think both Ahmadinejad and Krushchev meant that their regimes would outlast Zionism and Capitalism.

...but then I have a bad habit of thinking well of folks...

Thinking well of the Iranians? Why?

[Oleg Bach]

This reminds me of the Krushchev line: We will bury you!

Many things get lost in translation - or found.

I think both Ahmadinejad and Krushchev meant that their regimes would outlast Zionism and Capitalism.

...but then I have a bad habit of thinking well of folks...

Apparently the Americans buried themselves. There was an old cartoon with Krushchev running towards a very expensive and impressive nuclear missle installation and he is yelling for them to stop the launch against the west ----- He is carrying a news paper with the head lines "Twenty million Americans on dope" - He tells them to wait....so Zionism is not against dope - nor is the big pharma Capitalist..infact they like the stupficational qualitys of poisons that generate profit. The problem with high capitalism enforced and maybe guided by Zionism --- which is no longer a Jewish club...is that they view people as commodity...and eventually profits gathered from street drugs - alcohol and insidioius mind altering pharma product work their way into the pockets of a few -----problem is that the poplation is now toxic and can not even run a corporation ---How many executives and judges and buisness leaders are medicated? Does this effect their judgement and perception? Sure does! No one asks the question - what the finacial chaos partly caused by mood altering substances of all kinds?...I would say that there is a connection. What was meant to control and exploit the poor crept up the food chain and infected the infectors.

[eyeball]

I get the sense from people who've decide to interpret Ahmadinejad's comments in the worst possible light believe that a country's government is a whole that is greater than the sum of its people. This must give great comfort to governments everywhere. They have their people right where they want them.

Edited February 21, 2009 by eyeball

[Argus]

I get the sense from people who've decide to interpret Ahmadinejad's comments in the worst possible light believe that a country's government is a whole that is greater than the sum of its people. This must give great comfort to governments everywhere. They have their people right where they want them.

It’s not their assets that define nations or religions in given historic moments but their liabilities. Goethe and Beethoven were part of Germany’s heritage even between 1933 and 1945, but the mass murder that defined Germany in the Nazi era was beyond redemption by poets and composers. Tolstoy and Tschaikovsky always belonged to Russia, but the definition of what being Russian meant during Stalin’s epoch came from the frozen corpses of the Gulag. Similarly, Islam’s definition in our times won’t come from the poetry of al-Maari or the medical canon of Avicenna, but from the fatwas of Ayatollah Khomeini and the press releases of Osama bin Laden.

George Jonas

[eyeball]

It’s not their assets that define nations or religions in given historic moments but their liabilities.

Many would say a government is a people's biggest liability at any given moment in time.

I wonder what George Jonas has to say about the bailout fever that's gripped our Zeitgeist by the gonads?

[kactus]

The difference between the regime must be vanished from the page of time and Israel must be wiped off the map is quite clear. The former refers to the policies of the zionist regime the latter refers to the people of the jewish state along with their land wiped off the map, which Ahmadinejad never said in his speech.

Let's look at the exaple of the old USSR

Communism existed USSR but did the downfall of communism translate into the demise of the ordinary russians? No!

It's not right to put both statements in the same category.

[M.Dancer]

The difference between the regime must be vanished from the page of time and Israel must be wiped off the map is quite clear. The former refers to the policies of the zionist regime the latter refers to the people of the jewish state along with their land wiped off the map, which Ahmadinejad never said in his speech.

Let's look at the exaple of the old USSR

Communism existed USSR but did the downfall of communism translate into the demise of the ordinary russians? No!

It's not right to put both statements in the same category.

Your exaple isn't the outcome of a threat, so ..sp what.

At the end of the day it is still a threat, one that should be taken seriously and the after tghey are knee capped we can whine about what they really meant.

[Peter F]

Thinking well of the Iranians? Why?

Shouldn't I? I need reason to think poorly of folks but I need no reason to think well of them. A personal quirk of mine...

[Argus]

Shouldn't I? I need reason to think poorly of folks but I need no reason to think well of them. A personal quirk of mine...

Yes, and Iran has given plenty of reasons to think poorly of them, and no reasons to think well of them.

Do you think well of Paul Bernardo too?

[Peter F]

Yes, and Iran has given plenty of reasons to think poorly of them, and no reasons to think well of them.

Do you think well of Paul Bernardo too?

Are the acts of an individual the acts of a nation? Shall I think poorly of Canadians because of one Canadians actions? What individual actions of an Iranian necessitate that I think poorly of Iranians?

[blueblood]

Are the acts of an individual the acts of a nation? Shall I think poorly of Canadians because of one Canadians actions? What individual actions of an Iranian necessitate that I think poorly of Iranians?

When it is a nation's government, yes we think poorly of them. The Iranians support this gong show and won't put a stop to it. If they want to prop up that joke of a government, they can pay the price.

A lot of Americans paid a similar price when GWB was in office. It wasn't fair, but a lot of people around the world thought poorly of Americans based on the Bush administration.

[Oleg Bach]

Are the acts of an individual the acts of a nation? Shall I think poorly of Canadians because of one Canadians actions? What individual actions of an Iranian necessitate that I think poorly of Iranians?

Persians are a great and noble culture. Look at the American phenomena that was Bush and Cheney - should we think badly off all Americans? Certainly not.

[Peter F]

When it is a nation's government, yes we think poorly of them. The Iranians support this gong show and won't put a stop to it. If they want to prop up that joke of a government, they can pay the price.

A lot of Americans paid a similar price when GWB was in office. It wasn't fair, but a lot of people around the world thought poorly of Americans based on the Bush administration.

So its fair, then, that I don't think poorly of Iranians.

[blueblood]

So its fair, then, that I don't think poorly of Iranians.

Oh it's fair, just keep in mind that you are endorsing the people who keep that nutbar in office.

IMO American policy surrounding nutbar world leaders is similar to how Sgt. Hartman deals with Private Pyle when he finds the Jelly doughnut in his foot locker in Full Metal Jacket.

[DogOnPorch]

IMO American policy surrounding nutbar world leaders is similar to how Sgt. Hartman deals with Private Pyle when he finds the Jelly doughnut in his foot locker in Full Metal Jacket.

-----------------------------

This is my rifle this is my gun...

[KeyStone]

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time or wiped off the map pretty much means the same thing....good thing they are working towards creating a device that relies on the energy of the cosmos to do the time wiping thing....

What seems like more of a threat?

A leader quoting some ambiguous words which potentially suggest that he wants the state of Israel gone, but clearly does not suggest ethnic cleansing or Iran attacking Israel?

or

A request from Israel to the US to make a military strike against Iran?

Furthermore, the US makes all kinds of implied threats against Iran, including labelling it as part of the axis of evil.

But perhaps the most threatening thing of all, is the US veto of a UN resolution that would have forbidden nuclear countries from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.

Frankly, unless the US reverses course on that decision, I believe Iran has every right to develop nuclear weapons.

[Oleg Bach]

What seems like more of a threat?

A leader quoting some ambiguous words which potentially suggest that he wants the state of Israel gone, but clearly does not suggest ethnic cleansing or Iran attacking Israel?

or

A request from Israel to the US to make a military strike against Iran?

Furthermore, the US makes all kinds of implied threats against Iran, including labelling it as part of the axis of evil.

But perhaps the most threatening thing of all, is the US veto of a UN resolution that would have forbidden nuclear countries from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.

Frankly, unless the US reverses course on that decision, I believe Iran has every right to develop nuclear weapons.

With globalization taking place at a break neck pace - why does Israel have the right to it's own little heavenly home and we are displaced...why do they get all the atonomous wealth and the rest of the planet becomes utlitarian hell where all persons are in effect homeless....I am entitled to a home on this earth - and so are billions of others who are denied personal atonomy and the right to the inheritance of tradtion - and that power that comes from it....Israel should let go of the past - and live in the present...and look forward to the future and contribute to all of mankind....They live in some private time warp that existed 4000 years ago...how can this warpage co-exist with us that live here an now?

[M.Dancer]

What seems like more of a threat?

A leader quoting some ambiguous words which potentially suggest that he wants the state of Israel gone, but clearly does not suggest ethnic cleansing or Iran attacking Israel?

I'm not sure how destroying an entity will somehow not harm the citizens.

Furthermore, the US makes all kinds of implied threats against Iran, including labelling it as part of the axis of evil.

Indeed, Iran exports terror that in themselves makes them worthy of a strike.

But perhaps the most threatening thing of all, is the US veto of a UN resolution that would have forbidden nuclear countries from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.

Three things

1) Unenforceable

2) Why tie your own hands?

3) Irrelevant

Frankly, unless the US reverses course on that decision, I believe Iran has every right to develop nuclear weapons.

And of course Israel has every right to preemptive destroy Iran capability. Not only a right, a duty

[Oleg Bach]

I'm not sure how destroying an entity will somehow not harm the citizens.

Indeed, Iran exports terror that in themselves makes them worthy of a strike.

Three things

1) Unenforceable

2) Why tie your own hands?

3) Irrelevant

And of course Israel has every right to preemptive destroy Iran capability. Not only a right, a duty

Yah - right - I have the pre-emtive right to smack you up side the head with a dried corn cob and be like the abusive father who cuffs the kids and says "This is for what you might do" -- Exportation of terror is the exportation of intimidation...everyone does that - militarily - covertly and ecomomically....If Israel wants to make the region timid and submissive so be it...take away the nukes and American invasiveness - and all you have are a pip squeek of a nation with traditional arms bought for them by the unsavory Uncle Samuel.

Here is something to be considered regarding the aid sent to Israel - From what I heard the contract stipulates that a great percentage of the aid must be spent on defence (arms). So the American tax payer sends money to this little nation - and the Israeli arns buyers send the bulk of the money back to America..where it does not benefit the tax payer - but only the high end weapons companies...- That's really a very very clever scam.