On June 08 2010 08:08 Squeegy wrote: Yes, this happened under the leadership of a specific individual. Hasn't happened in a while or currently. Didn't involve kidnappings or murder. Didn't involve Palestinians alone, but mostly Israelis. Is this some shady fucking shit? Absolutely. Is the way you presented it purposedly trying to make Israel look worse than it is? Absolutely.
Yes, democracy can in theory entail all that. Moreover, all that is relevant to the point I was making, is that Israel has elections. The people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel.
Can't believe you went there, this is a lost cause. You really think Palestinians don't want Hamas to be in charge? Or Iraqi didn't want Saddam Hussein as their president? You are so naive it boggles my mind.
What the fuck are you talking about? Hamas or Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
On June 08 2010 08:17 Squeegy wrote: No, it isn't, nor did I claim it is. I said elections, as in, the people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel, is all that is relevant to the point I was making.
Would you guys stop putting words in my mouth?
I think you are just saying things without thinking ahead and it always comes back to bite you in the ass. You've done it multiple times in this thread, no one is putting anything in your mouth besides the bitter taste of a failed argument.
On June 08 2010 08:18 Squeegy wrote: What the fuck are you talking about? Hamas or Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
You don't even understand what you've implied just now, you've basically stated that Palestinians have a democracy too. What was the purpose of you proving that Israel was a democracy if Palestine is a democracy as well? You can't connect even these dots?
On June 08 2010 08:17 Squeegy wrote: No, it isn't, nor did I claim it is. I said elections, as in, the people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel, is all that is relevant to the point I was making.
Would you guys stop putting words in my mouth?
I think you are just saying thing without thinking ahead and it always comes back to bite you in the ass. You've done it multiple times in this thread, no one is putting anything in your mouth besides the bitter taste of a failed argument.
On June 08 2010 06:48 Klaz wrote: The issue of the President of Iran and indeed Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel is an important one to examine. Especially since so much feeling on the wider middle east conflict seems to have originated on these statements.
"Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" translation Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement as though Ahmadinejad had demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9] News sources currently continue to repeat this claim. [10] Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[11] The translation presented by IRNA has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". In his own words: So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian: "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 Persian 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 full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
I think it's safe to gather that what he's talking about is regime change as opposed to genocide or ethnic cleansing. When taken in the context of many major first world countries casually discussing and implementing regime change, it doesn't seem to be as outlying a position as one might initially consider.
Later on in the wiki article:
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Considering that Israel is a democratic state, what he is basically saying is, submit or be destroyed. And you choose to describe this as a regime change. I have to say that is an interesting choice of words.
Let's discuss wether Israel is a democratic state or not. + Show Spoiler +
I'd like to mention another example of this: A swedish journalist wrote an article claiming that the israeli military inofficially kidnap Palestine citizens and steal their organs for Israeli medical use. This caused an outrage in Israel. Their people started to boycott Ikea and the foreign minister told the swedish gouvernment to close down the paper that had published the Article. The swedish foreign minister answered explained to him that this isn't legal in sweden and that isn't how a democracy is supposed to work. It's also illegal within your own law in Israel to do so.
Thing calmed down in time, but the article was debated in sweden because it used unknown sources. Even if the question had to be answered all we could trust was the journalists word.
About a month later it's revealed that Jews living in America have bought and sold stolen organs. It's horrible but still doesn't prove what the journalist was writing about and his sources still wanted to stay unknown because of the risks of going out in public.
Then an anthropologist happens to do a field work in Israel and Interview doctors. Multiple doctors reveal to her that the Israeli military have been kidnapping Palestine citiziens, killed and stolen their organs to help their own soldiers.
So here we are today again. Israel calls us antisemites and claims that everyobdy on the ships are terrorists and it's Israel against the world yada yada yada. They dissapprove of the UN's idea of a objective investigation on the Ship to gaza events.
Could they possibly maybe perhaps know that facts of their own actions would reveal lies of their gouvernment? Are they aware of that their actions are unjust against international law and want to hide it from us? Has this happened before and will it happen again?
Dear Israel. It's not u against the world. It's you believing that it is.
To name a couple of examples of Israeli actions: They boarded a boat on international water. They used Fosfor against Palestinans in Gaza during their well timed attack between Bush-> Obama. (This is also against international law. Ironically this was banned after ww2 after the nazis use of this against Jews).
The ancient greeks lived in a democracy even though they used slaves. Today our definition of Democracy doesn't allow slavery.
Does our definition of democracy involve breaking international law over and over again and disrespecting the freedom of speach?
Yes, this happened under the leadership of a specific individual. Hasn't happened in a while or currently. Didn't involve kidnappings or murder. Didn't involve Palestinians alone, but mostly Israelis. Is this some shady fucking shit? Absolutely. Is the way you presented it purposedly trying to make Israel look worse than it is? Absolutely.
Yes, democracy can in theory entail all that. Moreover, all that is relevant to the point I was making, is that Israel has elections. The people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel.
Palestine has elections. Israel has elections.
Is that all that defines a democracy? Think bigger and return. I'll be waiting
No, it isn't, nor did I claim it is. I said elections, as in, the people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel, is all that is relevant to the point I was making.
Would you guys stop putting words in my mouth?
About the rest of your previous post: Please inform me with hard facts on what I supposedly don't know about the organ stealing instead of neglecting my post with anything at all to back it up.
And about wether or not I'm trying to make Israelis look worse than it is. They stole organs from palestinians and used it for their own military. Is it an excuse against it that they didn't only steal it from palestinians? Did I make Israelis look worse by not mentioning that they stole organs from israelis and palestinans?
On June 08 2010 04:55 L wrote: [quote] Listen to the Chomsky video. He has a nice differentiation between defending one's self and using force to defend one's self.
His point is nice in an academic sense, but it's ludicrous in the larger, real world of global power politics. Rational state actors do all that they can to further their interests to the fullest extent of their power. The morality of whatever action is taken is, in and of itself, irrelevant. It's only relevant to the extent that the morality or immorality of a given action strengthens or weakens the state's power and its ability to further its interests.
I prefer listening to a professor understanding both sides in a cause and giving ideas for solving problems than someone who takes the greed for wealth, earth and power to be a universal unstoppable force.
Should the weak and poor respect and do nothing against social injustice caused by the upper classes and political decisions because of the "universal" greed in some politicians? Should we all give up our hopes of a just world? If we did the society would look exactly like what satanists want.
Perhaps the question is irrelevant to you. You don't live in Gaza, so why bother? Well for one thing you have entered this discussion and seem to have something to say about the situation. Your'e also a human being, therefore you most probably have what is called empathy and then you probably don't want people to suffer. You've heard of another view on the gaza situation than what you use right now. Of course it might hurt to care about people suffering instead of saying "greed is unstoppable" and not give it another thought. But is that what should control our decisions on such topics?
You can call this philosofical nonsense but you still have to answer the question now that you've read it so please do.( by "have to" I mean to yourself, not here)
There's nothing balanced about what Chomsky says in the video. His solution to the Middle East is for the US to stop supporting Israel and for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and other settlements. How exactly is that going to placate the millions of pissed off Palestinians and other Arabs that won't tolerate Israel's very existence? He didn't even address the Palestinian side of the equation.
Also, don't mistake my argument for a lack of empathy for the Palestinians. I guarantee you that I've been more impacted by Israel's establishment and expansion that most anyone else posting in this thread. My family is Lebanese and was displaced by Israel. I understand better than most what Israel has done since its establishment and how poorly it treats non-Jewish residents. In fact, this is why I don't think that a two-state solution is possible.
Nevertheless, I can still see and understand Israel's point of view. They've been under threat since the founding of Israel. They've been attacked by other countries on three different occasions. Beyond that, Jews in general have been victimized for thousands of years. From Egypt, to Rome, to Spain, to other European countries, the Jews have had a history of raw deals. So when other states and groups actively preach and advocate the destruction of Israel, I don't really blame them for being hyper-aggressive in their defense. Should they have boarded that Gazan flotilla? Absolutely. Did they screw up when doing it? Definitely.
If you were a young man living in Gaza or the West Bank, what do you think your attitude toward Israel should be?
Chomsky argues that whether the "peace process" is in motion or stagnant, Israel has always had an offensive defense. Life inside Palestine is like life in a prison, so it is no wonder that Hamas has such popular backing; retaliation is a natural reaction to violence, and past non-violent internal movements are widely seen to have been met by no less callousness. The facts show that Israel is the oppressor in this conflict, do you disagree?
So again, what do you think is a rational outlook for someone living in Palestine?
Do I agree? Yes and no. On the one hand, Israel has treated Palestinians like dirt within Israel. On the other hand, the Palestinians have yet to show any inclination that they'd accept and honor a two-state solution. If they were willing to accept and honor a two-state solution, they wouldn't fire rockets at Israeli towns. Do I blame the Palestinians for being angry at Israel? Nope.They should be angry. However, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians or engaging in suicide bombing attacks will not solve anything.
So your belief is that Palestinians should renounce violence, accept the two-state solution - and all will be well?
Yep. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestinians unless the Palestinians accept Israel's existence. Right now, I don't think that they do. As long as various groups bomb or fire rockets at Israelis, there won't be peace. Will Israel have to give something up in exchange? Certainly.
Do I think that this will ever happen? No. I don't think that the Palestinians will ever accept Israel. Too many countries, entities, and other groups want to see Israel destroyed. Realistically, either Israel or the Palestinians will have to be wiped our for there to be peace. My bet is that Israel will be the one to go.
That was a highly baited question, and you've gone farther off the deep end than necessary. Sure you don't want to reconsider?
Nope, I think I answered it directly and concisely. There can only be peace if both sides will accept it. However, I don't think both sides will ever come to a mutually acceptable arrangement.
I agree, both sides need to be willing to agree on a two-state solution.
It is a loaded question, however, because the facts show that Israel and U.S. have been the biggest obstacles to reaching a peaceful resolution.
Why?
(1) Because there are enough hardliners in the Knesset that don't give a damn about Palestinian rights to a state and want it all for themselves. There are people on both sides that do not want peace. (2) When tensions are most relaxed, there are still fundamentalist (yes, the term Zionist is correct here) settlers refusing to give up stolen land (the government answered Obama's request to rollback settlements with "not an inch"). (3) The U.S. has consistently vetoed UN security council condemnations of Israel's expansionism and oppression. This has been going on for decades.
These are the facts that make a statement that Hamas is the sole barrier to peace contemptible. It's already been noted in this thread that Hamas supports a two state solution with boundaries that are understood to be fair by international perspective. Various Palestinian governments have been willing to make peace - there are also many brave non-violent movements (in both Palestine and Israel) you will probably never hear about in the mainstream news, but the Palestinians are nevertheless labeled a violent people worthy of our scorn.
We agree that a two-state solution is the answer, but I blame the parties with the most power and influence for failing to meet their obligations. You blame the victim.
On June 08 2010 08:28 condoriano wrote: He wanted to prove that Israel is a "democracy" meanwhile stating that Palestine and Iraq were "democracies" all along. Made a lot of sense.
That's how I understood it as well but he seems to mean something else since he somehow finds a way to disagree with us.
On June 08 2010 08:08 Squeegy wrote: Yes, this happened under the leadership of a specific individual. Hasn't happened in a while or currently. Didn't involve kidnappings or murder. Didn't involve Palestinians alone, but mostly Israelis. Is this some shady fucking shit? Absolutely. Is the way you presented it purposedly trying to make Israel look worse than it is? Absolutely.
Yes, democracy can in theory entail all that. Moreover, all that is relevant to the point I was making, is that Israel has elections. The people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel.
So the point is that all (a majority) Israelis were evil since their government (which was stated by squeegy himself) violated human rights and abused Palestinians.
But currently they have a "good" government, so Israel is not as bad as we made it out to be, because people can choose their President.
When the ship to gaza intiative was on it's way a decision on how to handle it from the israeli side had to be made. there are 7 politicians in Knesset who for some reason has more to say than the rest. These 7 decided the methods of stopping the ships and the boarding from helicopters instead of shooting the propellers. There were voices in Knesset going against this but without results.
After the horrible events with 9 dead the U.N sent a proposition to Israel about a objective investigation led by New Zealand and representants from Israel and Turkey.
This issue was discussed by the 7 politicians who stood behind the first decision. And they said no to the U.N's proposition.
Apparently they want the U.S to be in the investigation
On June 08 2010 08:08 Squeegy wrote: Yes, this happened under the leadership of a specific individual. Hasn't happened in a while or currently. Didn't involve kidnappings or murder. Didn't involve Palestinians alone, but mostly Israelis. Is this some shady fucking shit? Absolutely. Is the way you presented it purposedly trying to make Israel look worse than it is? Absolutely.
Yes, democracy can in theory entail all that. Moreover, all that is relevant to the point I was making, is that Israel has elections. The people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel.
So the point is that all (a majority) Israelis were evil since their government (which was stated by squeegy himself) violated human rights and abused Palestinians.
But currently they have a "good" government, so Israel is not as bad as we made it out to be, because people can choose their President.
Conclusion: people of Israel became good.
For some reason I thought that the Israeli gouvernment hadn't changed it's policy at all over the last couple of years but if they are good now and respect international law I can go to bed feeling safe.
Later!
P.S Squeegy I still want your definition on our discussion. I've got nothing against being proven wrong so do your best!
On June 08 2010 06:48 Klaz wrote: The issue of the President of Iran and indeed Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel is an important one to examine. Especially since so much feeling on the wider middle east conflict seems to have originated on these statements.
"Wiped off the map" or "Vanish from the pages of time" translation Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement as though Ahmadinejad had demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9] News sources currently continue to repeat this claim. [10] Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[11] The translation presented by IRNA has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". In his own words: So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian: "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 Persian 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 full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
I think it's safe to gather that what he's talking about is regime change as opposed to genocide or ethnic cleansing. When taken in the context of many major first world countries casually discussing and implementing regime change, it doesn't seem to be as outlying a position as one might initially consider.
Later on in the wiki article:
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Considering that Israel is a democratic state, what he is basically saying is, submit or be destroyed. And you choose to describe this as a regime change. I have to say that is an interesting choice of words.
Let's discuss wether Israel is a democratic state or not. + Show Spoiler +
I'd like to mention another example of this: A swedish journalist wrote an article claiming that the israeli military inofficially kidnap Palestine citizens and steal their organs for Israeli medical use. This caused an outrage in Israel. Their people started to boycott Ikea and the foreign minister told the swedish gouvernment to close down the paper that had published the Article. The swedish foreign minister answered explained to him that this isn't legal in sweden and that isn't how a democracy is supposed to work. It's also illegal within your own law in Israel to do so.
Thing calmed down in time, but the article was debated in sweden because it used unknown sources. Even if the question had to be answered all we could trust was the journalists word.
About a month later it's revealed that Jews living in America have bought and sold stolen organs. It's horrible but still doesn't prove what the journalist was writing about and his sources still wanted to stay unknown because of the risks of going out in public.
Then an anthropologist happens to do a field work in Israel and Interview doctors. Multiple doctors reveal to her that the Israeli military have been kidnapping Palestine citiziens, killed and stolen their organs to help their own soldiers.
So here we are today again. Israel calls us antisemites and claims that everyobdy on the ships are terrorists and it's Israel against the world yada yada yada. They dissapprove of the UN's idea of a objective investigation on the Ship to gaza events.
Could they possibly maybe perhaps know that facts of their own actions would reveal lies of their gouvernment? Are they aware of that their actions are unjust against international law and want to hide it from us? Has this happened before and will it happen again?
Dear Israel. It's not u against the world. It's you believing that it is.
To name a couple of examples of Israeli actions: They boarded a boat on international water. They used Fosfor against Palestinans in Gaza during their well timed attack between Bush-> Obama. (This is also against international law. Ironically this was banned after ww2 after the nazis use of this against Jews).
The ancient greeks lived in a democracy even though they used slaves. Today our definition of Democracy doesn't allow slavery.
Does our definition of democracy involve breaking international law over and over again and disrespecting the freedom of speach?
Yes, this happened under the leadership of a specific individual. Hasn't happened in a while or currently. Didn't involve kidnappings or murder. Didn't involve Palestinians alone, but mostly Israelis. Is this some shady fucking shit? Absolutely. Is the way you presented it purposedly trying to make Israel look worse than it is? Absolutely.
Yes, democracy can in theory entail all that. Moreover, all that is relevant to the point I was making, is that Israel has elections. The people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel.
Palestine has elections. Israel has elections.
Is that all that defines a democracy? Think bigger and return. I'll be waiting
No, it isn't, nor did I claim it is. I said elections, as in, the people Israelis want leading Israel, are leading Israel, is all that is relevant to the point I was making.
Would you guys stop putting words in my mouth?
About the rest of your previous post: Please inform me with hard facts on what I supposedly don't know about the organ stealing instead of neglecting my post with anything at all to back it up.
And about wether or not I'm trying to make Israelis look worse than it is. They stole organs from palestinians and used it for their own military. Is it an excuse against it that they didn't only steal it from palestinians? Did I make Israelis look worse by not mentioning that they stole organs from israelis and palestinans?
All you did was confirm my post.
On this post Exactly what is your point then?
They didn't kidnap or kill Palestinians. They used already dead bodies. Did I not say that it is shady fucking shit? Does calling it shady fucking shit sound like I'm making an excuse? Yes, you did make Israelis look worse. Example: Man yells racial slurs against black people. Replace black people with people of all colours. Makes you see the guy in a different light, doesn't it? Here, read: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.organs/
No, I very much changed the connotations of your post.
My point would obviously be that if Ahmadinejad is calling for the wiping off of the Israeli regime, it follows, since the Israeli regime is democratically elected, that the call entails the people of Israel who support the Israeli regime.
My point would obviously be that if Ahmadinejad is calling for the wiping off of the Israeli regime, it follows, since the Israeli regime is democratically elected, that the call entails the people of Israel who support the Israeli regime.
Under that logic, hating Thatcher or Bush would be the equivalent of hating all of the UK and USA?
My point would obviously be that if Ahmadinejad is calling for the wiping off of the Israeli regime, it follows, since the Israeli regime is democratically elected, that the call entails the people of Israel who support the Israeli regime.
Under that logic, hating Thatcher or Bush would be the equivalent of hating all of the UK and USA?
That's pretty... hilarious.
Yeah, because all of the UK and the USA voted for Thatcher and Bush, right?
But try this: if you're hating Thatcher and Bush for their policies, it follows that you hate all people with their policies.
Similarly, Ahmadinejad may only mention the Israeli regime, but his message is basically submit or be destroyed to the majority of people in Israel. This is because the majority of people in Israel most likely agree with the policies of the Israeli regime..
Fuck those guys. There's no need for aid in gaza? the UN disagrees..
Executive summary of the mission report says: The blockade comprises measure such as restrictions on the goods that can be imported into Gaza and the closure of border crossing for people, goods and services, sometimes for days, including cuts in the provision of fuel and electricity. Gaza's economy is further severely affected by the reduction of the fishing zone open to Palestinian fishermen and the establishment of a buffer zone along the border between Gaza and Israel, which reduces the land abailable for agriculture and and industry. In addition to creating an emergency situation, the blockade has significantly weaked the capacities of the population and of the health, water and public sectors to respond to the emergency created by the military operations. ... Even before the military operations [of the summer of 2009] 80 per cent of the water supplied in Gaza did not meet the WHO's standards for drinking water.
Fuck those guys. There's no need for aid in gaza? the UN disagrees..
Yeah, I'm getting really tired of the people sitting in their first world countries in their air conditioned homes with clean water and telling us how much aid Gaza needs. Posting a picture of a fruit stand as proof that Gaza doesn't need aid. These people would be on the phone with their ISP the second they lose their precious internet connection yet they've determined that other people don't need food and clean water.
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Considering that Israel is a democratic state, what he is basically saying is, submit or be destroyed. And you choose to describe this as a regime change. I have to say that is an interesting choice of words.
I do not understand persian, so my interpretation is based on the article, and that seems to be the conclusion there.
Personally I don't think calling for "regime" change is a bad thing as the current govt is run by extremist right wing hawks who have no interest in peace. A less psychopathic regime would definitely help bring piece to the region.
On June 08 2010 07:32 Squeegy wrote: Later on in the wiki article:
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Considering that Israel is a democratic state, what he is basically saying is, submit or be destroyed. And you choose to describe this as a regime change. I have to say that is an interesting choice of words.
I do not understand persian, so my interpretation is based on the article, and that seems to be the conclusion there.
Personally I don't think calling for "regime" change is a bad thing as the current govt is run by extremist right wing hawks who have no interest in peace. A less psychopathic regime would definitely help bring piece to the region.
There is a difference between governments and regimes. Governments change all of the time. Regime change is infrequent, complicated, and typically violent.
EPT
