Zionist Hasbara Agents in Media "Badly Misquoted" President of Iran

Lost in Translation
Experts confirm that Iran’s president did not call for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’

The fake “translation” has been used by Jewish supremacists to drag America closer yet to another war for Israel. House Reps. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) have initiated a “resolution” sponosred by 22 congress members that says Ahmadinejad is guilty of violating the 1948 Convention on Genocide. Since the Convention “prohibits ‘direct and public incitement to commit genocide… Ahmadinejad’s hateful rhetoric calling for the elimination of Israel, a Member State of the United Nations, qualifies as inciting genocide.” Rothman is experienced in these kinds of weasel tactics. In 2005 a similar “resolution” helped engineer the prosecution of a Lithuanian paper for questioning Zionism. Jewish supremacists are very fond of “criminalizing” speech they don’t like; not only is the Bill of Rights one of their victims, but soon unknown numbers of US youth driven into a war on Iran may be as well — V-News

By Jonathan Steele
January 16th, 2007

My recent comment piece explaining how Iran’s president was badly misquoted when he allegedly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” has caused a welcome little storm. The phrase has been seized on by western and Israeli hawks to re-double suspicions of the Iranian government’s intentions, so it is important to get the truth of what he really said.

I took my translation – “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” – from the indefatigable Professor Juan Cole‘s website where it has been for several weeks.

But it seems to be mainly thanks to the Guardian giving it prominence that the New York Times, which was one of the first papers to misquote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came out on Sunday with a defensive piece attempting to justify its reporter’s original “wiped off the map” translation.

Joining the “off the map” crowd is David Aaronovitch, a columnist on the Times (of London), who attacked my analysis yesterday. I won’t waste time on him since his knowledge of Farsi is as minimal as that of his Latin. The poor man thinks the plural of casus belli is casi belli, unaware that casus is fourth declension with the plural casus (long u). (…..Full Article Here)