TEHRAN: Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesdaythat Israel must be "wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA press agency reported.

Ahmadinejad was speaking to an audience of about 4,000 students at a program called "The World Without Zionism," in preparation for an annual anti-Israel demonstration on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan.

His tone was reminiscent of that of the early days of Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979. Iran and Israel have been bitter enemies since then, and anti-Israel slogans have been common at rallies.

Senior officials had avoided provocative language over the past decade, butAhmadinejad appears to be taking a more confrontational tone than Iranian leaders have in recent years.

Argue abot the translation if you will, but the intent seems fairly clear, particularly when he continues to make comments of the sort:

2-11-06;WND

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today echoed his earlier threats to "wipe Israel off the map" by telling a mass demonstration in Tehran, commemorating the 27th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, that Palestinians and "other nations" will remove Israel from the region, adding a warning to the West that harsh measures against the nation's nuclear program would result in Iran walking away from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

So, Iran has stopped calling for the Destruction of Israel and I didn't know?

Did Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad call for Israel to be 'wiped off the face of the map? Here is Juan Cole's take. His column is called "Informed Comment" so I doubt Chuckels reads it.

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. (Wampum has more; as does the American Street).

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

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

It was apparently some Western wire service that mistranslated the phrase as 'wipe Israel off the map', which sounds rather more violent than calling for regime change. Since then, Iranian media working in English have themselves depended on that translation. One of the tricks of Right-Zionist propagandists is to substitute these English texts for Ahmadinejad's own Persian text. (Ethan Bronner at the New York Times tried to pull this, and more recently Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute.)

But good scholarship requires that you go to the original Persian text in search of the meaning of a phrase. Bronner and Rubin are guilty disregarding philological scholarship in favor of mere propagandizing.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html

Only that while you defend Nixon's trip to China as having "preconditions", you would attack Obama from meeting with Iran even if he obtained the exact same level of "preconditions"

.

So, Iran has stopped calling for the Destruction of Israel and I didn't know? Possible, but rather unlikely.

We have done enough of that under Bush.

That's the same take-away I am getting...

Again, though, it's not a bad thing. Every country is different, our relationships with them are different, and our interests compared to theirs are different. Bithead is right to expect different conditions for a talk with Iran than he excepts for China.

The problem was that he wasn't making that clear, and you were arguing under the assumption that his use of the term "precondition" meant the same thing in both instances.

Only that while you defend Nixon's trip to China as having "preconditions", you would attack Obama from meeting with Iran even if he obtained the exact same level of "preconditions".

That's the same take-away I am getting...

Of course not. Is there a point, here?

Only that while you defend Nixon's trip to China as having "preconditions", you would attack Obama from meeting with Iran even if he obtained the exact same level of "preconditions".

So your argument isn't about the conditions of Obama's meeting, but rather specifically with the target of the meeting being Iran. You have a double standard, which I'm not saying is bad, just that everybody else needs to realize that while trying to make sense of what you are claiming.

China obtained concrete concessions from Nixon in regard to Taiwan.

(Chuckle) Isn't that the very nature of negotiation, that each side gets a little bit?

Yup. 'Cept it looks like we gave concrete and got fog in return.

China's aggression against Taiwan

A bit of a reach. China did not, and does not want a air/naval battle with the US that they will lose. Of course after 8 years of Bush, it is going to be increasingly difficult for us to maintain military superiority. Its difficult to support carrier battle groups, much less build new ones, when you are running out of money.

Hint, China thinks long term...

My question to Bithead would be, if Iran agreed that change and closer relations to the US is in their interest, like Kissinger got from China, but still reserved the right to keep it's nuclear program, and still refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist as an independent nation, would that be enough of a precondition?

Of course not. Is there a point, here?

I'll bet there is no easy public access to all the content of preliminary Nixon meeting, but the fact that they existed and were held were themselves a precondition to the meeting. Preconditions don't necessarily imply concessions, a point that too many are grabbing onto. (though maybe concessions would be wanted in the Iran situation).

Well, as I've suggested, and in my reading of the matter over the years, Nixon managed to push back China's aggression against Taiwan another 20-25 years. Alas, we dropped the ball on that after Nixon got done. Clinton's Wal-Mart diplomacy, for example.

Anjin is just here to spread FUDs and its not worth your efforts to respond to him.

So I determined, as you may have noticed. Still, this stuff has to bbe stood up against when it shows up. Example:

China obtained concrete concessions from Nixon in regard to Taiwan.

(Chuckle) Isn't that the very nature of negotiation, that each side gets a little bit?

Oh, and lest we forget, our own left, of which you are decidedly one, Anjin, was pushing for our withdrawal, there, and Nixon had political considerations at home on that point.

If I were in involved with the inner workings of the DNC I would assign 1 or 2 Anjin's each to monitor several rightwing blogs and keep the discussions from being any meaningful dialog.

Well, sure. That's been the point all along, of course. The creation of confusion is a great political tool, as I think it was Stalin used to say. (Or was it Nietzsche?)

I'll bet there is no easy public access to all the content of preliminary Nixon meeting, but the fact that they existed and were held were themselves precondition to the meeting. Preconditions don't necessarily imply concessions

Sounds like Rodney just agreed with Obama's position.

I gave up responding directly to Anjin a couple of years ago

A harsh punishment indeed :)

Actually, I have come to the conclusion that Bit is correct, just not in the way he thinks he is.

China obtained concrete concessions from Nixon in regard to Taiwan. In exchange, Mao made nebulous promises to be nicer in the future.

China obtained an opening that has allowed them to move from being an agrarian nation that had trouble feeding itself, to where it is today, within shouting distance of being a superpower. (Just look at how much of our economy is in thier back pocket) Looks a bit like Kissenger and Nixon were out negotiated.

Anjin is just here to spread FUDs and its not worth your efforts to respond to him. If I were in involved with the inner workings of the DNC I would assign 1 or 2 Anjin's each to monitor several rightwing blogs and keep the discussions from being any meaningful dialog. Anjin has been here long enough that he is just doing this freelance. I gave up responding directly to Anjin a couple of years ago when LJD (not sure if he's around here much anymore) found Anjin arguing in circles and just throwing out baseless attacks on Bush. It is entertaining to watch, but it serves no purpose to respond to him.

Henry Kissinger came on television to say Obama misstated his position.

So what? Kissinger is a McCain shill.

No doubt. Which means, of course, you never actually read the link.

Actually, I did. I just did not feel it supported your position.

Bit, I am not asking you to split the atom. Just name one precondition that Nixon got from China. Don't dance, don't shuck and jive. Here, I will show you how it is done. Here is one precondition China got from Nixon:

1. The US agreed to reduce its military presence in Taiwan as a precondition.

See, easy. Can you preform this simple task? Signs point to no.

You're no longer worth my time.

Promises, promises.

Give me a sanity check. Did he actually provide a citation of a precondition? All I saw was rings of smoke through the trees...

Kind of. The problem is that the preconditions Kissinger got from China are nothing like the preconditions that people are insisting we get from Iran.

My question to Bithead would be, if Iran agreed that change and closer relations to the US is in their interest, like Kissinger got from China, but still reserved the right to keep it's nuclear program, and still refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist as an independent nation, would that be enough of a precondition?