When I wrote a reply to the editors of six Iranian news websites who had complained about international news coverage of Iran, I wasn’t sure whether they would respond. Well, now the senior editor of one of those websites, Alef, has fired back. He, and I’m only assuming it’s a he, isn’t happy.
For example, the Alef editor suggests I had no business commenting on the joint letter because VOA is “the Official Media of the Government of the United States, a country that has done cruelty to Iran for the past 60 years.” (He also accuses me of “pride and arrogance,” suggesting this is an American trait and the reason why “all the efforts to improve the ties” between the United States and Iran “have not worked.”)
The editor then responds to the three questions I posed.
1. Are Iran’s domestic media free and able to report objectively, accurately and comprehensively on the country’s affairs?
Alef senior editor: “It depends on their professional capacity and facilities. In most cases, within the framework of law the answer is yes.”
2. Are western journalists allowed unrestricted access into Iran and freedom of movement after their arrival?
Alef senior editor: “If they don’t break the law the answer is yes. But there are numerous records of breaking the laws by journalists and western spies in the cover of journalists in Iran. These records obviously have made the Islamic republic of Iran very pessimistic about western journalists working in Iran.”
3. Do Iranian authorities allow citizens to cooperate with foreign media –including providing western news outlets with news and pictures? Are they allowed to have access to them?
Alef senior editor: “Within the framework of the law, yes. Employees and cameraman of some news agencies and western TV networks in Iran are usually Iranians. About the second part of the question, if the western news sources are not against the Iranian laws, access to them is free, as many of the thousands of western news sources are accessible in Iran. But the misuse of this freedom by some of the western media has made the Islamic republic to be very pessimistic about the honesty of these media and make limits regarding the access to them.”
Thus, we learn that in Iran, muzzling the press is fine as long as it is done “within the framework of the law.”
But the Alef editor wasn’t finished there. He had new questions for me:
1. Can Mr Belida and his colleagues release any news which is against the national interest of Israel?
2. When the US government closed the case for the September 11th attack in an unfinished way and with no conclusion, which American journalist protested against this decision? What was the conclusion of this possible protest? What was the answer of US government to revelations made in this regard in the 9/11 documentary made by Michael Moore?
3. Can any journalist in the west question the holocaust and present documents to deny the holocaust?
4. Can any Iranian journalist enter the United States and report on what they consider as “the realities of US society” to their audience?
5. During the last summer and winter, the Persian service of the Voice of America broadcast a picture of an Iranian lady named Taraneh Mousavi and broadcast the story of her arrest, rape and setting fire of her body. Can Mr. Belida say what was the source for this news in VOA? Can VOA present just one more picture of her, any ID document, address of her school, workplace or house, a neighbor, family of this person?
6. Why did VOA zoom in on last summer’s turmoil in Tehran and encourage its viewers openly or suggest to them to set fire to public properties and break the law? Are these actions considered media related work?
7. Why did the Voice of America introduce Abdolmalik Rigi as "the leader of popular Iranian resistance movement" while interviewing him?
I’d like to focus in this post on questions 1, 2 and 3. And here is what I want to say: in the U.S., journalists can and do ask all sorts of questions, even when the questions are, well, absurd. (Can the same be said of journalists in Iran -- assuming of course that they ask questions "within the framework of the law"?)
As for the other questions, let me do some research and address them in another post. This isn’t to suggest the questions have any more merit than the first three but they are quite specific and I want to be precise. Stay tuned.
14 April 2010
30 March 2010
Ethiopia and the Art of the Outrageous Statement
We are all accustomed to hearing political figures, especially from authoritarian countries, make outrageous statements.
But I think Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi may have uttered the most outrageous statement of all this past month when he compared Voice of America broadcasts to Ethiopia to the broadcasts of Radio Milles Collines, the infamous “hate radio” blamed for inciting the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Here is what Ethiopia’s state-run news agency quoted Meles as saying:
“We have been convinced for many years and that in many respects, the VOA Amharic Service has copied the worst practices of radio stations such as the Radio Mille Collines of Rwanda, in its wanton disregard of minimum ethics of journalism, and engaging in destabilizing propaganda.”
Meles’ opposition to VOA broadcasts is being used as justification for Ethiopian jamming of VOA broadcasts. It now appears his government is expanding its censorship effort by blocking VOA’s website.
The U.S. government recently fired back at the Ethiopian leader. Acting State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid says Meles may disagree with the news carried by VOA but jamming VOA signals contradicts Ethiopia’s public commitment to freedom of the press. He says it also is in conflict with the country’s constitutional statement that all citizens have the right to freedom of expression “without any interference” and that this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, “regardless of frontiers.”
As for that vicious comparison between VOA and Radio Milles Collines, Duguid said this: “Comparing a respected and professional news service to a group that called for genocide in Rwanda is a baseless and inflammatory accusation…”
I only wish Duguid could have been even stronger in his response.
But I think Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi may have uttered the most outrageous statement of all this past month when he compared Voice of America broadcasts to Ethiopia to the broadcasts of Radio Milles Collines, the infamous “hate radio” blamed for inciting the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Here is what Ethiopia’s state-run news agency quoted Meles as saying:
“We have been convinced for many years and that in many respects, the VOA Amharic Service has copied the worst practices of radio stations such as the Radio Mille Collines of Rwanda, in its wanton disregard of minimum ethics of journalism, and engaging in destabilizing propaganda.”
Meles’ opposition to VOA broadcasts is being used as justification for Ethiopian jamming of VOA broadcasts. It now appears his government is expanding its censorship effort by blocking VOA’s website.
The U.S. government recently fired back at the Ethiopian leader. Acting State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid says Meles may disagree with the news carried by VOA but jamming VOA signals contradicts Ethiopia’s public commitment to freedom of the press. He says it also is in conflict with the country’s constitutional statement that all citizens have the right to freedom of expression “without any interference” and that this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, “regardless of frontiers.”
As for that vicious comparison between VOA and Radio Milles Collines, Duguid said this: “Comparing a respected and professional news service to a group that called for genocide in Rwanda is a baseless and inflammatory accusation…”
I only wish Duguid could have been even stronger in his response.
19 March 2010
Response to the Response to the Iranian Editors
Our response to the editors of six Iranian websites has elicited a number of comments – most of them on the Farsi-language link. In case you haven’t gone there, here are some of the English-language comments:
“When thousands of people have eyewitnessed Neda's death, you (VOA) have reported it. What is wrong with that? When (opposition Presidential candidate) Mr. Karoubi, and the parents of the people who were raped in Kahrizak (prison) have protested, you have reported it as well. What is wrong with that? When people of Iran are complaining for 30 some years, you are reporting it. What is wrong with that? And etc, etc, etc.”
“The fact that these sites (the six Iranian websites) have not been closed yet indicates that either they represent the government or have accepted to play the game by the current government rules. Consequently, they are not independent by any means. In my opinion, the conservative hardliner rulers of Iran have done more damage to our country than any other enemy we have had in our 3000 years of history.”
“Thank you very much for your short and efficient response to enemies of Iranians who struggle (against) the brutal regime ruling Iran.”
“Great answer, short and to the point. Keep up the good work.”
I have asked my colleagues to look for some critical comments that take issue with the response. Hopefully we will be able to post some of those soon.
“When thousands of people have eyewitnessed Neda's death, you (VOA) have reported it. What is wrong with that? When (opposition Presidential candidate) Mr. Karoubi, and the parents of the people who were raped in Kahrizak (prison) have protested, you have reported it as well. What is wrong with that? When people of Iran are complaining for 30 some years, you are reporting it. What is wrong with that? And etc, etc, etc.”
“The fact that these sites (the six Iranian websites) have not been closed yet indicates that either they represent the government or have accepted to play the game by the current government rules. Consequently, they are not independent by any means. In my opinion, the conservative hardliner rulers of Iran have done more damage to our country than any other enemy we have had in our 3000 years of history.”
“Thank you very much for your short and efficient response to enemies of Iranians who struggle (against) the brutal regime ruling Iran.”
“Great answer, short and to the point. Keep up the good work.”
I have asked my colleagues to look for some critical comments that take issue with the response. Hopefully we will be able to post some of those soon.
11 March 2010
A Reply to the Editors of Six Iranian News Websites
A joint letter from the editors of six Iranian news websites came into the office the other day. It raised several critical questions about the way international news organizations have covered recent events in Iran. It specifically charged that western news reporters and reports are not “honest and professional.”
Why? Well, the editors note a case in which western media picked up an Iranian blog report on the death of a young Iranian woman, who was allegedly sexually abused while in custody after protesting the 2009 election. The editors’ complaint: “Do you think it is professional to spread such far-reaching news through an unknown blog?”
Then they cite the case of Neda Agha Soltan. The Iranian website editors voice suspicions about a young doctor seen in videos of her death. They ask: “Why did he travel to Iran five days before Neda's death from UK [Britain] and a day after the event he leave Iran to UK” where he was interviewed by the BBC. Iranian media have suggested the doctor was the killer, not security forces. Again the editors question the professionalism of western journalists for failing to look into alternative explanations for the young woman’s death.
The letter goes on to accuse BBC Persian and the Voice of America of allegedly encouraging anti-government protesters in Iran – a frequent complaint of Iranian officials. It specifically complains about VOA interviewing an Iranian terrorist, now in custody in Iran, who the editors claim was treated as a hero.
Now here is where the letter gets interesting. The Iranian web journalists say they wrote their letter “to defend the current realities in Iran, not [President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad; you must note that most of us are among the critics of Mr.Ahmadinejad’s government.” They call on western news organizations to re-evaluate whether they have “been fair and impartial or not” in covering Iran.
It is signed by the editors of:
- Alef
- Farda
- HamshahriOnline
- Jahan
- KhabarOnline
- Tabnak
What’s interesting is that none of these organizations have been shut down by Iranian authorities, while several other media outlets inside Iran have been closed and some journalists arrested.
And this raises the question: are these editors trying to do the government’s work in a professional media guise? One could easily imagine a government official summoning the editors to a meeting and “suggesting” it would be in their interest to issue such an open letter to western media.
Because the facts simply don’t support their arguments or their contentions.
So let us throw back some questions at our Iranian editors:
1. Are Iran’s domestic media free and able to report objectively, accurately and comprehensively on the country’s affairs?
2. Are western journalists allowed unrestricted access into Iran and freedom of movement after their arrival?
3. Do Iranian authorities allow citizens to cooperate with foreign media –including providing western news outlets with news and pictures?
Of course, we know the answers are, in order, no, no and no. We would suggest the Iranian editors who wrote the open letter ought to get their own internal information house in order first before presuming to counsel their counterparts in the west.
We don’t minimize the difficulties any responsible journalist in Iran faces today in trying to survive professionally. But all journalists should ask themselves how far can they go and still preserve their self-respect. We note for the record many Iranian journalists have elected to leave their own country. We commend them for the sacrifices they have made to remain true to their principles.
Eds Note: a Farsi-version of this commentary is available on the web here.
Why? Well, the editors note a case in which western media picked up an Iranian blog report on the death of a young Iranian woman, who was allegedly sexually abused while in custody after protesting the 2009 election. The editors’ complaint: “Do you think it is professional to spread such far-reaching news through an unknown blog?”
Then they cite the case of Neda Agha Soltan. The Iranian website editors voice suspicions about a young doctor seen in videos of her death. They ask: “Why did he travel to Iran five days before Neda's death from UK [Britain] and a day after the event he leave Iran to UK” where he was interviewed by the BBC. Iranian media have suggested the doctor was the killer, not security forces. Again the editors question the professionalism of western journalists for failing to look into alternative explanations for the young woman’s death.
The letter goes on to accuse BBC Persian and the Voice of America of allegedly encouraging anti-government protesters in Iran – a frequent complaint of Iranian officials. It specifically complains about VOA interviewing an Iranian terrorist, now in custody in Iran, who the editors claim was treated as a hero.
Now here is where the letter gets interesting. The Iranian web journalists say they wrote their letter “to defend the current realities in Iran, not [President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad; you must note that most of us are among the critics of Mr.Ahmadinejad’s government.” They call on western news organizations to re-evaluate whether they have “been fair and impartial or not” in covering Iran.
It is signed by the editors of:
- Alef
- Farda
- HamshahriOnline
- Jahan
- KhabarOnline
- Tabnak
What’s interesting is that none of these organizations have been shut down by Iranian authorities, while several other media outlets inside Iran have been closed and some journalists arrested.
And this raises the question: are these editors trying to do the government’s work in a professional media guise? One could easily imagine a government official summoning the editors to a meeting and “suggesting” it would be in their interest to issue such an open letter to western media.
Because the facts simply don’t support their arguments or their contentions.
So let us throw back some questions at our Iranian editors:
1. Are Iran’s domestic media free and able to report objectively, accurately and comprehensively on the country’s affairs?
2. Are western journalists allowed unrestricted access into Iran and freedom of movement after their arrival?
3. Do Iranian authorities allow citizens to cooperate with foreign media –including providing western news outlets with news and pictures?
Of course, we know the answers are, in order, no, no and no. We would suggest the Iranian editors who wrote the open letter ought to get their own internal information house in order first before presuming to counsel their counterparts in the west.
We don’t minimize the difficulties any responsible journalist in Iran faces today in trying to survive professionally. But all journalists should ask themselves how far can they go and still preserve their self-respect. We note for the record many Iranian journalists have elected to leave their own country. We commend them for the sacrifices they have made to remain true to their principles.
Eds Note: a Farsi-version of this commentary is available on the web here.
19 February 2010
“The City Is Full of Dizzy People”: Iran and Jamming
An article recently appeared in Iran’s Mardomsalari newspaper by a doctor challenging claims by the country’s Health Minister that the jamming of TV and radio broadcasts has no negative health impact on humans.
The Minister’s comment contradicted a statement by the head of Iran’s parliamentary health committee, who had previously noted such negative effects as fatigue, dizziness and nervous and mental health disorders. The comment also came after a university medical department head told a health conference that jamming had resulted in a rise in the number of patients suffering from infertility.
The Mardomsalari article’s author said “we cannot just ignore the effects of jamming waves on people.” He reported the number of patients coming to health clinics because of dizziness has increased. He noted many others simply don’t visit a doctor.
He then went on to say: “The city is full of dizzy people. I have seen people leaning against the wall to avoid falling.”
This doctor acknowledges “we have no right to say the epidemic of dizziness is related to radio frequency waves without proper proof. Maybe we are dealing with an unknown virus…”
But he argues that jamming needs to be considered as the source of the problem.
VOA signals to some places like Iran are jammed from time to time. We obviously don’t approve as jamming violates the notion of the free flow of information. Jamming is wrong. And if authorities anywhere knowingly endanger their citizens' health through jamming, that is clearly wrong, too.
One of VOA’s transmission experts tells me there are distinct similarities between exposure to the microwaves from microwave ovens and exposure to the frequencies like those used in jamming.
One link the expert gave me was to a Radio Frequency Safety guide from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. One quote: “Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF [radio frequency] energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food. Exposure to very high RF intensities can result in heating of biological tissue and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage in humans could occur during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat that could be generated. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the excess heat load.”
But let me conclude by noting that as in Iran, this is a topic of debate elsewhere. For its part, the World Health Organization says, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF [radio frequency] signals from base stations... cause adverse health effects.”
The Minister’s comment contradicted a statement by the head of Iran’s parliamentary health committee, who had previously noted such negative effects as fatigue, dizziness and nervous and mental health disorders. The comment also came after a university medical department head told a health conference that jamming had resulted in a rise in the number of patients suffering from infertility.
The Mardomsalari article’s author said “we cannot just ignore the effects of jamming waves on people.” He reported the number of patients coming to health clinics because of dizziness has increased. He noted many others simply don’t visit a doctor.
He then went on to say: “The city is full of dizzy people. I have seen people leaning against the wall to avoid falling.”
This doctor acknowledges “we have no right to say the epidemic of dizziness is related to radio frequency waves without proper proof. Maybe we are dealing with an unknown virus…”
But he argues that jamming needs to be considered as the source of the problem.
VOA signals to some places like Iran are jammed from time to time. We obviously don’t approve as jamming violates the notion of the free flow of information. Jamming is wrong. And if authorities anywhere knowingly endanger their citizens' health through jamming, that is clearly wrong, too.
One of VOA’s transmission experts tells me there are distinct similarities between exposure to the microwaves from microwave ovens and exposure to the frequencies like those used in jamming.
One link the expert gave me was to a Radio Frequency Safety guide from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. One quote: “Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF [radio frequency] energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food. Exposure to very high RF intensities can result in heating of biological tissue and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage in humans could occur during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat that could be generated. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the excess heat load.”
But let me conclude by noting that as in Iran, this is a topic of debate elsewhere. For its part, the World Health Organization says, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF [radio frequency] signals from base stations... cause adverse health effects.”
03 February 2010
Internet Freedom
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently gave a speech on Internet freedom in which she observed “information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any moment in history.”
Yet Mrs. Clinton also noted that there continue to be threats to the free flow of information. She mentioned several countries, including China, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Egypt, as well as Iran. She said restrictive practices in such countries mark the descent of what she called “a new information curtain” across parts of the world.
Predictably, some of these countries responded negatively to her remarks. A Chinese newspaper, “Global Times,” acknowledged that, in its words, “The free flow of information is a universal value treasured in all nations.” But it went on to accuse the United States of what it charged was “information imperialism.”
For their part, according to Iran’s "Press TV", Iranian officials charged “Washington… continues to meddle in the country's internal affairs.”
The Voice of America has long stood for the free flow of information worldwide. It is adapting to new technologies to make sure every avenue is used to disseminate accurate, objective and comprehensive news.
And VOA is counting on the continued assistance of brave individuals in countries like Iran who send out cell-phone and other video images of events the country’s government does not want the world and their own people to see. Such images, like the footage of a young woman’s murder in Tehran, represent what Mrs. Clinton called “a digital indictment of the government’s brutality.” She said the courage of those sending out such images “is redefining how technology is used to spread truth and expose injustice.”
Yet Mrs. Clinton also noted that there continue to be threats to the free flow of information. She mentioned several countries, including China, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Egypt, as well as Iran. She said restrictive practices in such countries mark the descent of what she called “a new information curtain” across parts of the world.
Predictably, some of these countries responded negatively to her remarks. A Chinese newspaper, “Global Times,” acknowledged that, in its words, “The free flow of information is a universal value treasured in all nations.” But it went on to accuse the United States of what it charged was “information imperialism.”
For their part, according to Iran’s "Press TV", Iranian officials charged “Washington… continues to meddle in the country's internal affairs.”
The Voice of America has long stood for the free flow of information worldwide. It is adapting to new technologies to make sure every avenue is used to disseminate accurate, objective and comprehensive news.
And VOA is counting on the continued assistance of brave individuals in countries like Iran who send out cell-phone and other video images of events the country’s government does not want the world and their own people to see. Such images, like the footage of a young woman’s murder in Tehran, represent what Mrs. Clinton called “a digital indictment of the government’s brutality.” She said the courage of those sending out such images “is redefining how technology is used to spread truth and expose injustice.”
09 January 2010
Checking the Facts: A Job That Never Ends
The NewsBlog recently received an email complaining about some of the background information in a story by reporter Robert Berger, who files for VOA from Israel. The item, headlined “Israel Says Iran Close to Nuclear Capability”, included a sentence intended to explain Israel’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. That sentence said: “Israel is alarmed by … previous threats by its [Iran's] president to wipe the Jewish state ‘off the map.’”
The email writer contends: “This phrase (from an October 2005 speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is a proven propaganda hoax..” And he cites a couple of references to back up his claim. One is a column in the Guardian newspaper by Jonathan Steele:
“…The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.”
I searched around and discovered an actual transcript of the speech. The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, and the English version I found was translated by Nazila Fathi of The New York Times Tehran bureau.
Its says that Mr. Ahmadinejad was in fact quoting Ayatollah Khomeini. But it also makes clear the phrase “wiped off the map” was used:
“Our dear Imam 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 [Israel] 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.”
Our email writer asks for a correction of the original Berger report, stating: “Ahmadinejad is no friend of the Israeli government, but I'm sure you'll agree his comments have been dangerously misrepresented in your article.”
The Managing Editor of VOA’s Central News Division, which issued the item, has decided against a correction, saying the editors stand by the story. I concur with that decision. This is because the preponderance of evidence supports our emailer’s own acknowledgement that “Ahmadinejad is no friend of the Israeli government…”
Here is some evidence of that (and these excerpts are drawn from reliable translations of the original Farsi):
--From the text of address by Mr. Ahmadinejad at an emergency meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, in Malaysia on 3 August, 2006:
“It is obvious that this regime is fake and lacks legal legitimacy…The existence of this regime is an ongoing humiliation of all the nations... The ultimate cure is the elimination of the Zionist regime… unrest, threats, and distrust will continue unless that regime is uprooted.”
-- From a speech by President Ahmadinejad at a meeting of foreign ministers of Iraq's neighboring countries, plus Egypt, in Tehran on July 8, 2006:
“…the accumulated energy of every single member [of the Islamic world], the pure hearts, the steady strides, the strong wills and the clenched fists of the people of the region are an immense support for getting rid of the Zionist [regime]… There is no logical reason for the continuation of the life of this regime [Israel].”
Eliminate Israel. Uproot Israel. Get rid of Israel. Seems consistent with saying it should be “wiped off the map.”
We stand by the story.
The email writer contends: “This phrase (from an October 2005 speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is a proven propaganda hoax..” And he cites a couple of references to back up his claim. One is a column in the Guardian newspaper by Jonathan Steele:
“…The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.”
I searched around and discovered an actual transcript of the speech. The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, and the English version I found was translated by Nazila Fathi of The New York Times Tehran bureau.
Its says that Mr. Ahmadinejad was in fact quoting Ayatollah Khomeini. But it also makes clear the phrase “wiped off the map” was used:
“Our dear Imam 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 [Israel] 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.”
Our email writer asks for a correction of the original Berger report, stating: “Ahmadinejad is no friend of the Israeli government, but I'm sure you'll agree his comments have been dangerously misrepresented in your article.”
The Managing Editor of VOA’s Central News Division, which issued the item, has decided against a correction, saying the editors stand by the story. I concur with that decision. This is because the preponderance of evidence supports our emailer’s own acknowledgement that “Ahmadinejad is no friend of the Israeli government…”
Here is some evidence of that (and these excerpts are drawn from reliable translations of the original Farsi):
--From the text of address by Mr. Ahmadinejad at an emergency meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, in Malaysia on 3 August, 2006:
“It is obvious that this regime is fake and lacks legal legitimacy…The existence of this regime is an ongoing humiliation of all the nations... The ultimate cure is the elimination of the Zionist regime… unrest, threats, and distrust will continue unless that regime is uprooted.”
-- From a speech by President Ahmadinejad at a meeting of foreign ministers of Iraq's neighboring countries, plus Egypt, in Tehran on July 8, 2006:
“…the accumulated energy of every single member [of the Islamic world], the pure hearts, the steady strides, the strong wills and the clenched fists of the people of the region are an immense support for getting rid of the Zionist [regime]… There is no logical reason for the continuation of the life of this regime [Israel].”
Eliminate Israel. Uproot Israel. Get rid of Israel. Seems consistent with saying it should be “wiped off the map.”
We stand by the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)