My following article appears in today’s edition of Crikey:
Antony Loewenstein, author of My Israel Question, writes:
In late 2006, hardline Zionists in Israel and the United States raised the possibility of indicting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” against the Jewish state.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that, “Iran is a danger to the entire world, because it envisions a 1,000-year Islamic Reich based on nuclear weapons.” A key problem for the case, casually slipped into the Jerusalem Post, was that, “the court is problematic for Israel — it has stipulated that settlements are tantamount to war crimes — and Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statue upon which it is based.”
Before last year’s Australian election, the then Labor opposition advocated chasing Ahmadinejad in a shameless ploy for the paranoid, Jewish vote. The fact that the case had zero chance of success and was being pursued by leading, discredited neo-conservatives – including former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who again recently advocated “responsible” bombing of Iran — appeared not to bother Kevin Rudd.
Perhaps most concerning was his acceptance of the widely mistranslated Ahmadinejad comment about wanting to “wipe Israel off the map”. In fact, he said nothing of the sort. The Iranian leader is certainly prone to making outlandish comments about Israel and denying the Holocaust, but that’s no more offensive than a host of Israeli leaders advocating the elimination or ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
It appears that the Rudd government is still on the case. Yesterday’s front-page story in The Australian breathlessly reported that Attorney-General Robert McClelland is “currently taking advice” on the possibility of pursuing Ahmadinejad. McClelland told the paper that this course of action was preferable to “wholesale invasion of countries”. Well, yes, but what about direct engagement?
Iran’s regional challenge to the American and Israeli-imposed status-quo is the great untold story of the last eight years.
Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan backed the move and Rudd told Sky News that Ahmadinejad’s comments had a “roll-on effect across the Islamic world, particularly those who listen to Iran for their guidance”.
Crikey asked the Attorney-General’s office to clarify the latest developments and a spokesman from his office said that, “the Government strongly supports maintaining pressure on Iran to act as a responsible member of the international community.” Furthermore, “like many in the community, Labor has long expressed abhorrence at the remarks of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. We believe the international community should do all it reasonably can to pressure Iran to be a more responsible global citizen.”
Questions about the pressure from the local Zionist leadership on the government went unanswered.
A Sydney-based ALP source told Crikey that pursuing Ahmadinejad was a pet project for Rudd, not unlike his slavish motion in parliament in March celebrating Israel’s 60th anniversary. The source said that, despite the opposition of many in the ALP, the motion was written with the involvement of the country’s leading Zionist lobby, AIJAC, and was initially far more congratulatory before being tempered.
Regular, public displays of affection for the Jewish state are an article of faith across the political divide. Zionism has become a religion. As we’ve seen with Barack Obama, support for the Palestinian cause virtually guarantees political oblivion.
Thanks heaps, Antony, for writing this. I’m extremely concerned with the level of “overt christian conservatism”, clearly peddled with joy, by Kevin Rudd.
Jack
He claims to have been ‘mistranslated’ on several occassions. Admittedly my Arabic is poor but what is he actually saying because from the translated speeches it sounds quite terrifying.
Ahem Raffe … It’s not just your Arabic that is poor. Ahmadinejad, like other Iranians, does not speak Arabic but the Persian language Farsi!
Does the seperate language mean that translation is more difficult?
Raffe
for Zionists the translation is whatever they want it to mean. The truth is not merely irrelevant but dangerous, which is why it has to be suppressed.
The truth being….
For those short of time, analytical capacity and/or moral integrity, the Truth is effectively anything currently denied by the Israeli lobby. Vide Mondoweiss (http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/jaffa-1948-and.html):
“Commentary’s piece denying the Nakba … shows how fealty to Israel is eroding Jewish intelligence, as it has forced some of the smartest people on the planet to devote themselves to coming up with elaborate proofs that black is white.”
A good local Exhibit A of the phenomenon was ex government Cabinet Minister Barry Cohen’s piece in the SMH, 12 May.
So being pro-Israel or a Zionist means that you’re an idiot?
Ignorant more like it..
Raffe
You’re a bit thick, which is understandable. Turning black into white is hard and demeaning work. On the contrary, being pro-Israel or Zionist means subordinating one’s intelligence and ethics to a greater cause, Lebensraum. This pathology would be inconsequential if it didn’t have such calamitous consequences for other parties. But then, of course, they aren’t Jews so they don’t matter.
So McClelland is taking advcse concerning the prosecution of Iran’s President. While he is hot to trot would he also take advice on the articles of impeachment laid in Congress by Senator Kunicich in April 2007. Particularly article ‘three’ which refers to allegations that Cheney has offended by pushing for war against Iran by means of threats which is contrary to international law.
Rudd/McClelland: I suggest that your Government starts being a little more even handed, remember what happened to that war supporter, Howard and his Government.
(911 was an inside job and more are realising it every week due to the scientific evidence of people like Prof Jones, Dr Leifer (Syd Uni) Dr Frank Legge(Perth) and all at aefor911truth.com and all at the patriotsquestion911.com website.)
Ant; great to see your readers coming out of the wood work!! We might start getting some debate here in Australia at last, it will not be balanced in the usual media outlets. May I suggest that you read Steve Alten’s doc/novel; The Shell Game.
Firstly, Ahmadinejad is hopeless at clearing the misconception that surrounds him in the mainstream press of the west. I know he was mistranslated – this page has a good explanation regarding that. Why has Ahmadinejad never said overtly, on the many chances that he has had with western media, that the mistranslation occurred? It’s almost like he wants to look bad.
This really confuses me. I read his letter to Bush – it was very touching really, and gave some faith in this guy.
Can Anyone help me out here?
Alistair, Brisbane, Australia
In October 2005 President Ahmadinejad said these EXACT WORDS in farsi: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e Qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”
Here is a literal word-for-word translation:
Imam (Khomeini)
ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime)
ishghalgar-e (occupying) Qods (Jerusalem )
bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (the page of time)
mahv shavad (vanish from).
The full quote properly translated into English:
“The Imam [Khomeini] said that this regime [now] occupying Jerusalem must vanish [one day] from the page of time”.
Note that (1) the word “map” (“nagsheh” in farsi) is never used.
(2) The farsi verb “wipe out” or “destroy” or “eliminate” is never used. (3) The word “Israel” is never used.
The sentence is no more than a prediction that the Zionist entity would one day die a natural death; it expressed no desire whatever for the violent obliteration of that entity.
Xanadu | 09.19.08 – 5:45 pm | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/andy8/8757840614845917621/?a=14308#339615