Iran and Isreal

Here is one of my old Facebook blog entries from 09/28/2006, it sort of ties in with my next post. It did have a list of sources but Facebook seems to have lost them somehow...I will stick them back in once I can get on my old desktop again.

“Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast."1

There is a fair amount of debate about the exact translation of the above text, spoken by the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran over 20 years ago.2 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quoted this at the "World Without Zionism" conference held in October 2005. The New York times reporter who covers Iran, Nazila Fathi, translated Ahmadinejad's speech as “Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.�?3 This set off a firestorm of debate that has led to the current rhetoric of the Bush administration. They would have us believe that Iran is secretly building nuclear weapons to use on Israel; and that this speech is an indication of Iran's intent. The situation has bothered me for some time because the administration's rhetoric reminds me very much of the rhetoric used in the very beginning of the lead up to the current Iraq war. The thing is Iran would never use a nuclear strike against Israel.

First of all, there is the matter of the translation of Ahmadinejad's statement. Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at University of Michigan, and President of the Global Americana Institute, who reads Persian, explains that Ahmadinejad actually stated (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini): “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).�?4 Many people dispute Cole's translation, but he is an expert on the middle east who speaks Arabic (Modern Standard as well as Lebanese and Egyptian dialects), Persian, and Urdu.5 He is also not the only person who disputes the translation.6

Secondly Iran would never conduct a nuclear strike on Israel because Jerusalem is so holy to Islam. Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam after Mecca and Medina.7 The Al-Aqsa Mosque, which contains the Dome of the Rock, is located on the former location of the Temple Mount. The rock in the center of the dome is believed by Muslims to be the spot from which Muhammad ascended through the heavens to God accompanied by the angel Gabriel, where he consulted with Moses and was given the (now obligatory) Islamic prayers before returning to earth.8 A nuclear strike on Israel is the only conceivable event that would inspire the Israelis to attempt the destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and rebuild the Temple. According to Christianity and Islam, the rebuilding of the Temple would cause the forces of many nations to attack Israel, and would signify the beginning of the end of days. This is what Khomeini was discussing when he said what he said.

It is not in Iran's interest to attack Israel politically or religiously. In addition to endangering the stability of Jerusalem; Israel would strike back with their nuclear arsenal. The United States would come to Israel's aid and would also attack Iran. Ahmadinejad may be an anti-Semite but he is not stupid. He realizes the danger to his regime that Israel could represent. The most that he wants to do directly is create a situation of mutually assured destruction that would increase the stability of the current middle east power structure. Iran will never conduct a nuclear strike on Israel.

Where is this all going? What is Bush's over all plan? I do not know personally. I hope that the United States will stick to diplomacy, but Iraq sets a dangerous precedent. Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, said in June that the Neo-Con plan is to nuke Iran.9 Because of Iraq and Afghanistan we cannot conduct a ground campaign in Iran; but the reason that we are having this “crises�? is that Bush intends to attack Iran anyway, just like he did in Iraq, only with nuclear weapons. I pray that Roberts is wrong.

For too long we have put up with abuses of power in this country. As Theodore Draper said, “In the new worship of power, we are squandering our power by using too much too frequently and too maladroitly. All great powers which have overestimated, overindulged, and overextended their power have come to grief. Whatever one may think about the present military imperatives, we cannot go on failing politically and “succeeding�? militarily without ultimately inviting disaster beyond anything yet known to mankind.�? He said that in 1967, in his book “Abuse of Power,�? about the Vietnam war. I love this country with all of my heart, and I do not want it to be brought asunder because our leader thinks that he talks to God. Jesus taught peace, restraint, tolerance, and moderation. Plato tells us that justice is in the interest of the common good; and that creator of the universe resides within the good. God is good. War is never in the interest of the good unless it is in direct self defense. It should be separated from politics and put under the control of the only human capacity that can restrain it's abuse; justice.

- Ray Arnold 09/28/2006