Guardian

Seumas Milne or Ahmadinejad? Guardian warns attacking Iran would be ‘criminal aggression’


Cross posted by Anne, who blogs at Anne’s Opinions

Float in Dusseldorf featuring Ahmadinejad

Guardian Associate Editor Seumas Milne, per George Galloway and other political fellow travelers, never met a dictator he couldn’t love and whose opposition to anything Western is visceral.

His latest column, Feb. 21, asserts that an attack on Iran would be an act of criminal stupidity. 

A US-Israeli stealth war [against Iran] is already raging on the ground, including covert assassinations of scientists, cyber warfare and attacks on military and missile installations. And Britain and France have successfully dragooned the EU into ramping up sanctions on Iran’s economic life-blood of oil exports as a buildup of western military forces continues in the Gulf.

Any of this could easily be regarded as an act of war against Iran –

If an attack is launched by Israel or the US, it would not just be an act of criminal aggression, but of wanton destructive stupidity. As Michael Clarke, director of the British defence establishment’s Royal United Services Institute, points out, such an attack would be entirely illegal: “There is no basis in international law for preventative, rather than pre-emptive, war.”

However, Clarke does not make clear, as with Milne’s broader commentary, the difference between pre-emptive and preventative.

From Dictionary.com:

Preemptive: of or pertaining to preemption…taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared. 

Preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless…rival.

And as I have pointed out before, preemptive attacks are indeed legal in the face of not only imminent attack but also expected and threatened attack:

The proliferation of WMDs by rogue nations gave rise to a certain argument by scholars concerning preemption.  They argued that the threat need not be “imminent” in the classic sense and that the illicit acquisition of these weapons, with their capacity to unleash massive destruction, by rogue nations, created the requisite threat to peace and stability as to have justified the use of preemptive force. NATO’s Deputy Assistant Secretary General for WMD, Guy Roberts cited the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the 1998 US attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, (identified by US intelligence to have been a chemical weapons facility) and the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility at Osirak as examples of the counter-proliferation self-help paradigm. Regarding the Osirak attack, Roberts noted that at the time, few legal scholars argued in support of the Israeli attack but notes further that, “subsequent events demonstrated the perspicacity of the Israelis, and some scholars have re-visited that attack arguing that it was justified under anticipatory self-defense.” Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, American forces captured a number of documents detailing conversations that Sadaam Hussein had with his inner sanctum. The archive of documents and recorded meetings confirm that Hussein was indeed aiming to strike at Israel. In a 1982 conversation Hussein stated that, “Once Iraq walks out victorious, there will not be any Israel.” Of Israel’s anti-Iraqi endeavors he noted, “Technically, they [the Israelis] are right in all of their attempts to harm Iraq.

Note what was said about Israel’s attack on Osirak, the international condemnations and the later reversal of opinion (not that Israel ever received an apology for the original condemnations).

The threats emanating from Iran, with its parades of missiles engraved “Marg bar Israel” (Death to Israel), the regime’s Holocaust denial, the determination of Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel off the map (yes, he indeed did say it many times) – not to mention its permanent proxy war against Israel conducted by Hezbollah and Hamas – all amount to viable motivations for a legal pre-emptive attack, whether by Israel, the Western allies, or a coalition of them all.

Again, Milne:

Such a capability wouldn’t be the “existential threat” Israeli politicians have claimed. It might, of course, blunt Israel’s strategic edge. Or as Matthew Kroenig, the US defence secretary’s special adviser until last summer,spelled it out recently, a nuclear Iran “would immediately limit US freedom of action in the Middle East”. Which gets to the heart of the matter: freedom of action in the Middle East is the prerogative of the US and its allies, not independent Middle Eastern states.

Milne’s dismissal of Israel’s concern about an existential threat is characteristically Guardian: Detached moral posturing far removed from the crisis being discussed. He is not the one sitting here in the Middle East waiting for bombs to fall on his family.  And, of course he does not care that Israel’s strategic edge would be blunted.

Anything that would weaken Israel is good as far as he is concerned, and similarly supports the potential that a nuclear Iran would limit US freedom of action in the Middle East.

It is biased and ideologically driven “journalists” like Milne who suffer from the real failure of imagination – those who cannot imagine the dire straits the civilised world will find itself in if Iran develops nuclear weapons, and who refuse to see the disastrous implications, some of which are already being played out today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He also seems egregiously detached from the moral lessons learned from the 20th century’s previous wars:  That when despotic regimes threaten destruction they usually carry out their threats.


93 replies »

  1. Why is the Guardian so supportive of foreign intervention elsewhere (Libya, Syria) but not Iran?

    Should we be trying to find a money trail?

    • Libyan intervention had the support of the UN and the Arab League. Moreover it was judged to be militarily achievable with minimal danger to the intervening powers. That was roughly the British government’s justification for its actions. The Guardian was much more equivocal, as this editorial shows:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/19/libya-perils-of-intervention-editorial

      Neither the British government nor the Guardian support military intervention in Syria; mainly for pragmatic reasons where the former is concerned. In the case of Iran the government sticks to the ‘keep all options open’ line of the US. The Guardian would oppose a military strike and and is doubtful of the value of sanctions, as in the Milne piece. Remember the sanctions against Iraq whose main effect was the deaths of thousands of children.

      • “Libyan intervention had the support of the UN and the Arab League. Moreover it was judged to be militarily achievable with minimal danger to the intervening powers.” sencar

        Oh, that sweet. So, there are a lot of caveats in that international-lawyerist creed, eh?

        So, if the Arab League and UN says it´s ok, then you can go ahead. If “it was judged militarily achievable with minimal dangers”, then it´s ok.

        Well, what about a threat of annihilation? Is that ok, with you? Can Israel have your permission and blessings?

        Hmm, it reminds me of prof debut´s recent dictum:

        “I love this blog’s kindergarten legal analyses.”

        Indeed, the irony is fantastic.

        • It’s daft to say that Iran intends to annihilate Israel. Iran hasn’t started a war in recent history. Clearly its leaders regard Israel as an illegitimate state; so do I. That’s not quite the same thing.
          Israel, on the other hand, has started several wars and is armed with nuclear weapons. It is Israel that is threatening violence to Iran, not the other way round.

          o say that Iran intends to anhiala

          • I beg to differ, dr sencar. You are made of the same pseudo-intellectual dark-matter as dr debutante.

            Arabs planned and continue to plan to annihilate Israel. Your denial of that shows you are nothing but a hateful liar.

            Fortunately, your brave muslims are incompetent and mostly keep killing each other senselessly. So much for muslim “brotherhood”. Not that you give a flying f*** about that, because we all know that beneath your mask of international-lawyerism and humanitarian babble, you, doc debutante and your pseudo-academic tribalists *only* care about bashing Israel. That´s your *true* passion. You just don´t display the same (fake) outrage energy on ANY other of the much more serious conflict in the world. It´s only Israel-hatred that drives your existence. An Israel´s amazing success. Yeah, that hurts your tribe of losers.

            This is nothing but judeophobia. And it´s pretty pathetic. Listen, at least try to be honest. Confess you just can´t stand Israel, the Jews and their disproportionate success. Even Julius Streicher was more honest than you.

          • Israel is ‘illegitimate’?

            For comparison, can you name me three or four other ‘illegitimate’ states, so I can see what the commonalities are?

            • There may be other illegitimate states but Israel is so defined for its own unique reasons, which can be summarised as follows:

              1) Statehood was proclaimed by “the National Council representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the World Zionist Movement”.
              In 1948 the majority of Jews in Palestine were alien immigrants, most of whom had not even taken out Palestinian citizenship. The proclamation of statehood by this group therefore had no legal basis, whilst ‘the World Zionist Movement’ had still less legal authority over Palestine.

              2) The Proclamation was based on two grounds:
              a. “the natural and historic right of the Jewish people”
              Since the Jewish monarchy ruled for just two and a half centuries over the last three millennia and the Jewish immigrants were not in any case descended from the earlier Jewish occupants this ‘historic right’ has no validity.
              b. “The Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations”.
              The state of Israel as proclaimed was very different from that in the resolution:
              (i) Its territory extended well beyond that in the partition plan.
              (ii) Its demography was substantially Jewish whereas the Resolution envisaged an Israeli state with an Arab majority.
              (iii) Its form of government was racist and theocratic – clearly not what the UN intended.
              (iv) Regardless of the above the UN General Assembly had no sovreignty over Palestine and no right to dispose of it in any way at all.

              The Proclamation’s reliance on the Resolution is therefore invalid.

              • “The Proclamation’s reliance on the Resolution is therefore invalid.” sencrap

                Hey, sencrap, I´ll let Peter Griffin tell you what we think of your BS. Enjoy.

          • sencrap cried:

            “It is Israel that is threatening violence to Iran, not the other way round.”

            Really?

            Here are videos of your favorite genocidal Islamfascist, your President of the Islamic Republic of Iran declaring his goal of Death to American and Death to Israel to cheering throngs of tens of thousands Islamfascists.

            Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Death to Israel”

            sencrap, you are the gift of foot in the mouth that keeps on giving.

            HAPPY ETERNAL NAKBA sencrap to you and your entire family!

          • “o say that Iran intends to anhiala”

            What?
            sencar I see you are as coherent as I’ve come to expect from you.

            By the way I regard you and your views as illegitimate.

  2. “From Dictionary.com:

    Preemptive: of or pertaining to preemption…taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared.

    Preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless…rival.”

    Excellent! Whilst Dictionary.com might be what passes for legal education in these circles, for anyone wanting an international law perspective:

    Preventive warfare “goes beyond what is acceptable in international law” and “lacks legal basis”

    Shaw, Malcolm (2008). International Law (6th edn). Camrbidge: Cambridge University Press. p. 1140.

    Brownlie, Ian (2008). Principles of Public International Law. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 734

    States have no right to initiate preventive warfare, which is usually used to prevent changes to balances of power, rather than to defend against aggression.

    Preventive warfare, where not authorised by the UNSC constitutes a war of aggression, an act described by the Nuremberg tribunals as the supreme international crime.

    I love this blog’s kindergarten legal analyses.

    • “I love this blog’s kindergarten legal analyses.” debutante

      Patronizing alert!

      We love prof debutante´s brand of pseudo-international-legalese. Keep the comedy going, prof. Maybe one day you´ll step down from your fantasy universe and learn to deal with the real world. Though maybe that´ll be too late.

      BTW, have you notice your schizophrenic oscillation between being a real-politiker (claiming that nations are born by conquest and all that) and
      a John-Lennonist judicial pipe-dreamer. Of course, debutante´s fairy-tale legalistic moralizing is applied exclusivity to whine about and bash Israel.

      In sum, the standard double-standards, typical from a grotesque ideologist posing as humanitarian paragon. Big joke.

    • Preventive warfare, where not authorised by the UNSC constitutes a war of aggression, an act described by the Nuremberg tribunals as the supreme international crime.

      Good. Dubi you must be confusing us Israelis with someone else who gives a shit about your or anyone else legalistic BS when threatened with annihilation.

      • Except, of course, that Iran hasn’t threatened Israel with military action. Israel, on the other hand, routinely and openly threatens Iran with military action.

        Honestly, sometimes I think you guys actually believe all this annihilationist, 2nd Holocaust stuff.

        • Except, of course, that Iran hasn’t threatened Israel with military action

          You must be right. When your hero Ahmadinejad speaks about wiping out Israel he certainly mean taking up a broom.
          The problem with you Dubi and your “international human rights experts” and “international courts” that you consider your racist farting a tornado – be informed it is even not a mild breeze – true it has a very bad stink.

          • “You must be right. When your hero Ahmadinejad speaks about wiping out Israel he certainly mean taking up a broom.”

            Except, of course, he hasn’t threatened to wipe out Israel. I know, I know. Details details.

            • Dubi you are a real gift for Cifwatch demonstrating every possible symptoms of a common Jew-hater.

              Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

              “The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land,” he said.

              “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran’s revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
              http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2005/10/200849132648612154.html

              I know they at the A-jazeera don’t understand Persian and they are the paid agents of the Elders.

              • “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,”

                Except, of course, that it is a well known mistranslation. You must be impervious to facts to still believe that particular hoax.

                Want to try again?

                • Yes dubi, the Zionist agents at al-jazeera are using MEMRI translations in their English language programs. The only problem is that here in Israel there are thousands of citizens whose mother tongue is Persian.
                  BTW the infamous sentence was published on your buddy “no gays in Iran” Ahmadinejad personal website too in English. Certainly he used the MEMRI translation too.

                • Dubitante. You are insane. Impervious to reality. Everything, absolutely everything is part of the conspiracy of lies and deceit spread by Israel for its own diabolical aims. You show us again and again why the state of Israel is so vital, in order to defend decent people against the malicious delusions of people like you.

                  • And, as a side-effect, Israel´s success causes great stress in twerps such as sencrap and prof doo-doo. Soon their hemorrhoids will burst from all that concealed hatred.

            • “Except, of course, he hasn’t threatened to wipe out Israel. I know, I know. Details details.” debut-goebbels

              Oh, yes, right. He used a more colorfull language, such as “extirpating the zionist cancer”, probably refering to Jewish cuisine or something. Ya know, these primitive peoples are very in touch with their emotions and like to way lyrical about the people they intend to exterminate. But let´s not get carried away; most of all, we should never, ever allow our Western skepticism and accumulated historical knowledge get in the way in undertanding the pristine view of those organic peoples, that believe in Jinns and take orders from the Hidden Imam.

              “I know, I know. Details details.” debut-goebbels

              Yeah, yeah. Formalities, formalities. BS, BS. Mendaciousness, mendaciousness. We know your style, prof debut.

                • Exactly. According to prof debutante´s formalistic BS, only if someone is pointing a gun to your head and telling “die you filthy Jew”, then one could suspect that maybe he wants to exterminate you. After the shot and all that blood and brains are splashed all over, then he *might* be convinced. Or not. More probably he´d be happy to push the trigger himself.

            • Anyway, Finkelstein has already called such as Dubitante disingenuous hypocrites who seek the ultimate end of Israel.

        • “Except, of course, that Iran hasn’t threatened Israel with military action. ” debut

          Of course not. For, as you once wisely reminded us all, “Iran” is a country, not a person, so it cannot threat anybody; only people can. Am I right?

          I hope you don´t mind if I use your own kindergarden pseudo-intellectual humbug against yourself. That´s what I meant when I told you that the Goebbelian-monologue era is GONE.

          But, don´t be sad. You make us all laugh and at least you can find a job in a circus (or the LSE).

        • dubi, Please go to Homs Syria and walk around telling the combatants about International Law.

          You can even wear a day-glo vest labeled “International Law” on it, and wave your favorite tome on “International Law” on it.

          Let’s see how influential you are.

    • “Whilst Dictionary.com might be what passes for legal education in these circles, for anyone wanting an international law perspective…”

      Yes, Screwbitante, we know you prefer the convoluted casuistry of international “law” to the plain meaning of words. Like that time I said Islam isn’t a race and you replied, “Racism isn’t about biology.”

      Plain dictionary meaning, common-sense thought and basic human morality don’t hold a candle to law-twisting loopholery, sentence-bending sophistry and verdict-slamming verbal acrobatics when there’s a need to justify the unjust, immoral and—gasp—illegal enterprise of robbing the Jewish nation of its one and only piece of land in the world. Imperialist aggression under the aegis of international “law.”

      But, as Rabbi Akiva said, “Everything the Merciful One has done, He has done for a good end.” On that note, even a wicked servant of anti-Jewish imperialist aggression needs to be thanked for taking the masks off evil for us, showing international “law” to be the morally perverted system of capitulation it is, the silver platter on which the Islamic imperialists get their victory handed to them. Thank you for making me a firmer believer in the primacy of Jewish Law!

      (Yes, yes, I know. “Mysticism,” blah blah blah. I saved the typing for you.)

      • In fact, the real mysticism is prof debutante´s international-lawyerism. It´s like those medieval mantras or incantations that supposedly could warp reality to one´s desire.

        That´s the aim of prof debutante´s selective legalese: it´s the progressivist counterpart of Ahmadinejad´s talking with the Hidden Imam.

        • “There were useful idiots like you that loved to appease the führer.”

          Back in the Führer’s day, people who dismissed the explicitly laid out plan in Mein Kampf did have one excuse: There had been no precedent.

          In our day, on the other hand… as you say, appeasement is all there is to it. It’s what Golda Meir once said of a U.N. delegation refusing to condemn an egregious instance of Arab terrorism in the 1970s: “They can’t speak, the oil is choking their throats.”

          • Exactly. Check how doc debutante dismissively chides us about “a supposed second holocaust”. Most probably he´s rooting for it to happen. In fact I hope the caliphate takes hold of his island first. Maybe he will have to rellocate to the Falklands (er, las Malvinas).

    • Since you cross-posted your comment on my blog under the name of Tim Haughton, I will cross-post my reply to you from my blog:

      Preventive warfare “goes beyond what is acceptable in international law” and “lacks legal basis”

      You can cherry pick quotes as much as you like. It doesn’t change the facts.

      I can cherry pick facts too, as I did in article above:

      The proliferation of WMDs by rogue nations gave rise to a certain argument by scholars concerning preemption.[31][32][33] They argued that the threat need not be “imminent” in the classic sense and that the illicit acquisition of these weapons, with their capacity to unleash massive destruction, by rogue nations, created the requisite threat to peace and stability as to have justified the use of preemptive force

      It also appears that Israel already has a justifiable casus belli against Iran due to its genocidal threats:

      Speaking last October at a Tehran conference on “The World Without Zionism,” Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, referred to Israel as a “disgraceful blot” and called for it to be “wiped off the map.” This was not an isolated or idle threat. In the same speech, he defended Iran’s determination to press ahead with its nuclear program — which would give it the practical ability to achieve this result.

      Although Ahmadinejad’s bellicose statements were condemned by the United States and a number of its European allies, the condemnation was not followed up by a concerted diplomatic and legal effort in the U.N. Security Council. It ought to be, especially given the uncertain prospects of the council’s current consideration of Iran’s nuclear activities, further complicated by the just-announced offer of direct negotiations between Tehran and Washington.

      There is a good legal basis for such action. Ahmadinejad’s words clearly violate Article 2.4 of the U.N. Charter. This provision, to which Iran has agreed, requires all U.N. member states to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Ahmadinejad’s specific formulation — wiping Israel off the map and prophesying a coming nuclear conflagration in which much of humanity would expire — also clearly entails a threat of committing genocide, which member nations are obliged, under the Genocide Convention, to prevent.

      But Ahmadinejad’s rant features a direct and unequivocal threat, and it gives Israel a valid casus belli — under both Article 51 (self-defense) of the U.N. Charter and customary international law — to use preemptive force as a means of ensuring that Iran cannot make good on its stated intentions.

      Indeed, the International Court of Justice, in a 1996 opinion analyzing the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, found that use-of-force threats that violated Article 2.4 and were not otherwise justified under Article 51 also posed a threat to international peace and security, thereby further infringing the U.N. Charter. Since Israel has not committed aggression against Iran, Ahmadinejad’s statements cannot be justified as self-defense. They have, in fact, created a legally cognizable threat that can, and should, be addressed by the Security Council under its Chapter VII powers, which are concerned with threats to peace.

      And in any event, since the UN has shown its constant disregard for Israel’s national security, and as the historian and State Archivist Yaacov Lozowick wrote on a similar case:

      Just another example among many that international law may be useful when peaceful democratic states such as Iceland and Britain need to resolve disagreements about fishing rights in the Northern Atlantic, but it’s useless when coping with international conflicts.

      I really couldn’t give a hoot whether you think the level of discourse on my blog is at kindergarten or college level. Keep your disdain to yourself, and lecture us only when you are standing in an Israeli’s shoes on the frontline. Then we’ll see how brave you are.

      • Great post. Doc “doo-doo” debutante suffers yet another knock-out. He must like that. Those Israel-haters clearly display a masochistic tendency.

      • “You can cherry pick quotes as much as you like. It doesn’t change the facts.”

        Indeed. The UN, as well as the scholarly consensus are all in agreement: preventive warfare is illegal. Sucks, right?

        “Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, referred to Israel as a “disgraceful blot” and called for it to be “wiped off the map.””

        Except, of course, that he didn’t. It’s a lie, and, it has to be said, a well known lie.

        “This was not an isolated or idle threat.”

        It wasn’t a threat full stop, as anyone who follows these things will tell you.

        • It is not a lie and not an isolated threat or statement. You haven’t read one link in any of the comments here, have you? You’re a coward who is too afraid to face the truth.

          “preventive warfare is illegal. Sucks, right?”
          No, to be honest, it doesn’t suck at all. As I quoted in my various links, it is a) not illegal; and b) if push comes to shove, Israel will not give a rat’s ass as to what is considered legal by the High and Mighty antisemitic UN, which has several murderous dictatorships sitting in its loaded Security Council. Israel will take what action needs to be taken in order to survive, and let the whingers gnash their teeth afterwards.

          • “It is not a lie and not an isolated threat or statement.”

            It has been debunked so many times it’s no longer funny. MEMRI, has it happens, translated the phrase in question, “بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود” as “this regime” must be “eliminated from the pages of history.”

            Arash Norouzi more accurately translates it as “the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

            Juan Cole similarly translated it as “the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”

            Shiraz Dossa eloquently put it:

            “Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation – “wipe Israel off the map” – suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can “wipe out” U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.”

            “No, to be honest, it doesn’t suck at all. As I quoted in my various links”

            You quoted nothing that looked to be of legal character. I quoted two respected international legal texts, you could also have the definitive opinion of the UN itself:

            http://www.un.org/secureworld/report.pdf

            So as I said, the consensus is clear. Preventive war is illegal.

            • “So as I said, the consensus is clear. Preventive war is illegal.” doo-doo

              Listen, doo-doo, parroting the same line over-and-over will not convince anybody. As I warned you, Goebbelian-style monologues, like yours, won´t stick anymore. It´s OVER.

              As for your so-called “consensus”, doo-doo, you can shove it.
              The consensus that *REALLY* matters for the Israelis, Jews and for all decent human beings that remain in the West, is that a country does what´s necessary for its survival. Period. Mull over it. Have your ulcer, whine, cry, it doesn´t matter. You are nothing.

            • I think the vile germ amid humans, Dubitante, who made up stories of his genocidal persecution in the past, should be wiped from the pages of history.

            • ‘The regime occupying Jerusalem must be wiped (‘vanish’ is insufficient) from the page of history’

              threatening enough, is only one piece of evidence, among many pronouncements which clearly have Israel’s end in mind. And by ‘regime’ the Ayatollah clearly meant ‘Israel’.

              But you are also, I think, an enemy of Israel, and a disingenuous hypocrite, according to the criteria of Norman Finkelstein, that he wouldn’t trust, were he an Israeli Jew, so you don’t get to lecture her in what consists her best interests or security, at least not so that she is obliged to take notice.

              To call ‘wiped from the map’ a hoax, given its +also+ being sometimes the English translation by internal Iranian news and propaganda bodies a ‘hoax’ is a very interesting choice, given its usual association with the word ‘Holocaust’ among those who use it WRT to Israel.

              Anyway, English, clearly you get off on ‘Zionist’ baiting. Which suggests you are both an individual sad and, in the final analysis, dangerous, since you spread the poison which threatens the largest number of Jews today.

              • It’s a hoax in the sense that numerous renowned scholars have explained what the actual translation is. So the deliberate regurgitation of something which has been demonstrated to be false can only be described as a hoax.

                • “So the deliberate regurgitation of something which has been demonstrated to be false can only be described as a hoax.” doo-doo

                  Oh, my, this is the perfect description of yourself. Your projectionitis is just uncontrollable, just as your hatred, prof doo-doo. Funny as always.

                • ‘The regime occupying Jerusalem must be wiped from the page of history’ is not a hoax, nor is it a hoax to maintain

                  a) it refers to Israel, since Iranian discourse is full of such references to the ‘Zionist entity’ that clearly mean Israel as whole or Israeli Jews as a group, emanating from the highest levels e.g. the president himself

                  b) it is a goal which, when combined with copious other evidence, could only be described as definitively +not+ ultimately eliminationist by someone interpreting with an enormous bad faith

                  As a professional interpreter of foreign languages, I know the best translations are rarely the most literal. As I already said, ‘wiped from the map’ is a translation that representatives of the Iranian regime have themselves use, evincing that they themselves think it to have been fit for purpose.

                  But, in any case, the sentiment is no less eliminationist of Israel than Norman Finkelstein says if that of the BDS movement as a whole, whose three-tier goal is, I suspect, one you also share.

                  The major difference is that Iran is threatening to do it with the shadow of nuclear weapons. Not to mention allies it funds and supports who are openly eliminationist towards Israel i.e. Hizbullah and Hamas-Gaza.

                  Only the willfully perverse would ignore evidence such as that.

                  And Israel has never threatened to wipe Iran from the pages of history, nor does it have a record of continually doing so.

                  • “Only the willfully perverse would ignore evidence such as that.” conchovor

                    That´s exactly what these doo-doo types are: perverts masked as “objective” analysts. In fact, those are the most dangerous types of anti-Semites. They follow Hitler´s strategy of presenting their Jew-hatred in a supposedly “rational” or “non-emotional” manner. So, instead of Julius Streicher porno-hatred, doo-doo types resort to porno-international-lawyerism. The motivation and the goal are the same.

                  • “it refers to Israel, since Iranian discourse is full of such references to the ‘Zionist entity’ that clearly mean Israel as whole or Israeli Jews as a group, emanating from the highest levels e.g. the president himself”

                    It refers to the regime. He has been very clear on this point. He has been over this time and time again. He views the Zionist regime as a cancerous presence, and he wishes it would go away. But as ex-mossad chief Dagan said, Ahmadinejad is a sophisticated individual, and he behaves quite rationally.

                    Ahmadinejad has actually said that the way he wishes to see the Zionist regime dealt with is by way of a referendum. He wants it gone, but he has never suggested that Iran would try to exact this by military force, and it’s simply deceitful to try to suggest otherwise.

                    His views are ridiculous, but the point I am making is that he has repeatedly called for a referendum in Palestine, where refugees return to their homes then Jews and Arabs vote on how they wish to be governed.

                    You might think this is ridiculous, and it may well be, but he isn’t threatening military action. He’s advocating the end of the Zionist regime via democracy. Perfectly valid to disagree with him, but not a reason for war.

                    • “You might think this is ridiculous,” doo-doo

                      You are ridiculous, doo-doo. I democratically vote against your pathetic existence.

                    • dubi, Liar, Liar. Pant on Fire.

                      BTW dubi, to test your HONESTY, are there homosexuals living in the Islamic Republic of Iran?

                      Or, as your dear President Ahm-Mad-bout-jihad said in a speech at Columbia University in 2007, there are NO homosexuals in his Islamic Republic?

                    • ‘He wants it gone, but he has never suggested that Iran would try to exact this by military force, and it’s simply deceitful to try to suggest otherwise.’

                      No. Iranian nuclear weapons would be one way of attempting to pressure Israel into such a thing.

                      You really are despicable. A new-fashioned ‘Zionist’ baiter, updated for the 21st century.

                    • By law, we have to endure ‘Zionist’ baiters like you. We can’t do much about you. Fortunately Israel exists so there is one place we don’t have to.

                    • ‘He views the Zionist regime as a cancerous presence, and he wishes it would go away.’

                      No. A cancer is something that has to be excised. Just as a rat has to be caught and killed.

                      The Nazis routinely used such parables and euphemisms to speak of Jews. And such as you routinely ignored them, too.

                      If a whole state, a people, is a cancer, that is genocidalist talk: it is reducing the state of millions of human beings to that of a malignant disease.

                    • The consistent downplaying of the often Islamist, eliminationist hostility to both Israel and Jews in the region, by westerners like Dubitante is evil.

                      And we are powerless against this evil here, or anywhere but Israel or the U.S. The barbarians are clamoring at the gates of ghetto. And all we can do is huddle together for warmth.

                    • ‘You might think this is ridiculous, and it may well be, but he isn’t threatening military action. He’s advocating the end of the Zionist regime via democracy. Perfectly valid to disagree with him, but not a reason for war.’

                      Reducing Israeli Jews to a minority in their own state, by BDS, without the threat of nuclear weapons, Norman Finkelstein calls the ultimate ending of any kind of Israel.

                      With the threat of nuclear weapons, how much more does it constitute a kind of eliminationism towards the state of Israel, which you constantly downplay (now you are beginning to acknowledge that it does actually exist).

                      I didn’t say an attack was the wisest policy, not least because of the huge difficulties involved. But, in the final analysis, against an implacable foe, one may have to eliminate lest one be eliminated, rather than wait for them to achieve the where-with-all they can effect their threats.

                      Israel may not be able to do this, for all kinds of reasons. But to downplay the eliminationist hostility which confronts her is wicked.

                    • ‘It refers to the regime. He has been very clear on this point.’

                      You are ignoring not only decades of Iranian, Islamist eliminationist hostility towards Israel, you are ignoring the very words of A., when in the past he has made quite clear he is referring to the millions of ‘European’ Jews who comprise Israel, millions he has said properly belong in Europe, should the Holocaust prove to have been historical.

                      How much less do they belong in Europe i.e., if not Israel, then the world, should it prove un-historical, which A. has intimated often.

                    • ‘You are ignoring not only decades of Iranian, Islamist eliminationist hostility towards Israel, you are ignoring the very words of A.’

                      Which is wicked.

                • Why do we tolerate enemies like Dubitante here? Were I in his presence, I would have to walk away.

                  He knows he can taunt us, here, where we are powerless. Israel exists so that, somewhere, ‘Zionist’ baiters such as he cannot touch us.

                • dubi, You can cover your eyes, cover your ears, march in circles and scream and shout, but the evidence that the Islamic Republic of Iran has issued calls for genocide against Israel are DOCUMENTED FACT.

                  You can invoke the opinions of all your “scholars” just as national Socialist Germany invoked racist, genocidal opinions of nazi academics, nazi scientists, nazi jurists, nazi scholars to support its policies, but in the final analysis you dubi, are just as corrupt and racist as those YOU invoke to support your claims.

                  HAPPY ETERNAL NAKBA!

              • I can’t fathom how many tons of shit Dubi is able to throw out during two short days…
                In one minute he defines Jewishness, after some seconds he becomes a Middle-Eastern scholar familiar with the small details of the Persian language, later he transmutes into a military expert. One moment he’s an anarchist, a nanosecond later a legalising bureaucrat. No doubt the guy has many talents…

            • Oh, my. Now prof doo-doo comes with his special effects. I can pick phrases too. You´d like this one, I´m sure:

              “Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country …” (Gen. Patton).

        • dubi, you can try to spin reality, you can try to reinterpret what your favorite genocial Islamofascist President of the Islamic Republic of Iran has said, but he is on record for calling for the destruction of Israel.

          Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Death to Israel”

          Is one UN member state calling for the destruction of another member state a violation?

          Should the Islamic Republic of Iran be kicked OUT of the United Nations?

  3. “Honestly, sometimes I think you guys actually believe all this annihilationist, 2nd Holocaust stuff.” debut

    Oh, really, debut? There were useful idiots like you that loved to appease the führer. But, why would you care? After all it´s not your lazy ass that´s in the line of fire. For now.

  4. The trolling doodoo isn’t dooing this blog any good.

    Anne, her comment isn’t worth your time. She can smear like a prisoner on a “dirty protest” and that’s all there is. She’s her own prisoner.

  5. I just want to comment on the “wiped off the map” business. I don’t speak Farsi, and I doubt Doo Doo does either. The plain fact of the matter is that the original so-called “mistranslation” did not originate in Western news agencies, or anywhere else in the West (or Israel), but rather, from the translators at the Iranian Republic News Agency (IRNA). Furthermore, this so-called mistranslation appeared on Ahmadinejad’s own Iranian govt. web site. (I saw it there before they pulled it down). Now, since I don’t speak Farsi, I don’t know who’s right or wrong. But I can surmise that the translators at IRNA had a much better sense of what their President was thinking than Juan Cole or any other Western intellectual.

    The other point is that saying “vanish from the pages of time” when you’re trying to build a bomb is pretty much the same threat as “wiped off the map.” Furthermore, has doo doo read what the wife of the last Iranian scientist to be assassinated has to say. Well, whether he has or hasn’t, here she is:
    HEDLINE: Wife of Assassinated Scientist: Annihilation of Israel “Mostafa’s Ultimate Goal”
    STORY: TEHRAN (FNA)- The wife of Martyr Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan Behdast, who was assassinated by Mossad agents in Tehran in January, reiterated on Tuesday that her husband sought the annihilation of the Zionist regime wholeheartedly. “Mostafa’s ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel,” Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani told FNA on Tuesday.

    I think that puts the “wiped off the map” quote in perspective. Incidentally, I think it also puts the “nuclear energy for electricity” scam in the dustbin too. And man, am I glad they got this creep scientist, and may they get many more.

  6. But, but…what do you MEAN by “wipe off the map”? Maybe it´s just like those Guardian travel guides to the middle-east, where Israel is not mentioned…she´s wiped off the map, literally. One has to investigate further and bring more evidence.

    The court hereby summons the Mahdi, aka the 12th Hidden Imman, to the witness stand. ORDER IN THE COURTROOM! Prof doo-doo, behave or you will be beheaded.