Iran's new statement on Israel...

[BeautifulBurnout]

So, as Peter Tatchell shrewdly points out in the Grauniad, why have we heard nothing of this?

The original article and vid of the i/v can be found here.

AMY GOODMAN: So, do you think Israel should be eliminated?

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] We believe that people have to decide and choose their own fate, the right to self-determination. If they would like to keep the Zionists, they can stay; if not, they have to leave. What do you think the people there want?

AMY GOODMAN: You would support a two-state solution, if they do?

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Wherever people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it’s very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums. We’ve been saying this for several years as a proposal. But those who use democracy as a pretext everywhere else are not—don’t think the Palestinians need democracy.

I would say that that is a pretty impressive clarification of Iran's position. If the Palestinians are happy to live in a dual state, so be it - it's up to them. No calls for wiping anyone off the map here, eh?

[holden]

Whoa, very interesting change of position from what the media usually suggests is his view.
I don't know enough about the conflict or the man to know if this is to be trusted or if there's perhaps something lost in translation. But it certainly bodes well for more detailed dialogue.

[dubman]

it's funny because he always seems like he just misses the boat on actually using the language he needs to get the finer details of his ideas clearly, but since he runs the country like a batshit asshole people are fine with taking his communicative clumsiness and running with it.
im not wondering whether hes a softer guy than we all thought, but i cant help but think that this arduous process of rephrasing was really just fumbling towards the articulate construction of his original idea that didnt sound cartoonishly demonic.

[Deckard]

Of course these remarks will be played down over here - regardless of their credibility.

On the other hand, there's no getting away from the fact that Ahmadinejad...

Originally Posted by dubman

...always seems like he just misses the boat on actually using the language he needs to get the finer details of his ideas clearly

So true. The number of times he could have just clarified his position but chose not to, putting his reputation to his own people above his reputation to the rest of the world, however much that isolated Iran.

I notice he also elaborated - slightly - on the 'no gays in Iran' comment...

Ahmadinejad has also caused controversy by previously suggesting there were no homosexuals in Iran. Regarding that statement, he told King: "I said it is not the way it is here. In Iran this is considered a very -- obviously, most people dislike it. And we have, actually, a law regarding it and the law is enforced."

However, he said, "we do pay attention that in Iran nobody interferes in the private lives of individuals. We have nothing to do with the private realm of people. This is at the -- non-private, public morality. In their own house, nobody ever interferes."

The problem, as always, is what to believe?

He seems even more of a politician (in the derogatory sense of the word) than some of our own. Yet despite that, none of us should cease remaining suspicious of the motives of our more warmongering politicians and media barons here in the US and UK, and the language they use - or don't use.

[Sean]

Pretty forgiving posts here. I for one don't trust a word this man says.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by Sean

Pretty forgiving posts here. I for one don't trust a word this man says.

Curious here, rather than pointing an accusatory finger, but why don't you trust him? Or rather, do you trust him any less than any of the other players in this quagmire, and if so, why?

One thing that has often bugged me is the "assertion" in the Western Press that he wanted Israel "wiped off the map". This is something that has been bandied about with gusto, and I for one hardly questioned it as it seemed to fall into line with my attitudes about him in general (I understand why he would think that way, but I certainly don't condone any such attitude).

Then I came across this in the Huffpo while trawling through some comments on a completely different topic. It made me realise that, as the man said, we have been lied-to about what Ahmadinejad's actual statement was to put the wind up us...

And there appears to be an Israeli minister who thinks kidnapping him and bringing him to Israel so he can be indicted at the Hague for "threatening genocide" would be a good thing:

"A man like Ahmadinejad who threatens genocide has to be brought for trial in The Hague," said Rafi Eitan, referring to the international war crimes tribunal in the Netherlands. "And all options are open in terms of how he should be brought."
Asked if kidnapping was acceptable, Eitan replied; "Yes. Any way to bring him for trial in The Hague is a possibility."

Hmmmm....

[chuck]

Watched the Daily Show last night, and Stewart's guest was Hooman Majd.

Video here.

I've read several books on Iran - not from a political learning point of view, or because of current events - but because Iranian/Persian history is when you stop and think about it amazing. Architecture, poetry, science and learning, diversity of history, culture and society. A vast and sprawling history that dwarfs my own country.

Iran's elections are next June - and if Iranians think Ahmadinejad is a bit bonkers and will look to get rid of him - then that is their right. As Majd points out - it is the Ayatollah's that hold the main power in Iran.

I don't really know if my thoughts add to the thread, but from what I've read, Iran is far more than the scary "evil" place that our media paints it to be. And much like Afghanistan - we don't really know the places we proceed to bomb and attack - for the purpose of 'fixing'.

All that said, Ahmadinejad could well be a complete nutter. But then I think GW Bush and the Pope are as well, so what do I know.

[Deckard]

Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil

Not relevant to the topic at hand other than to wonder how much more coverage this would be getting if the cleric was Iranian rather than Saudi.

[chuck]

An interesting article on Iran - Iran's Interrupted Freedom.

You know - because there really isn't any 'THEM'.

"Iranians are as ready as ever to complain about inflation, corruption and an overall lack of opportunity - but try and talk politics, and the most likely response is disinterest. True, at the top levels the attitudes and the rhetoric are still often vehement; the country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was in routine form at the United Nations general assembly's annual meeting in New York, prophesying the end of the "American empire" and scorning the "few bullying powers" who were trying to ruin his country's "peaceful nuclear activities". But in much of Iran, in the marketplaces and cafes and streets, people have other concerns: this sort of thing appears to be just irrelevant background noise."

[Deckard]

A British former foreign secretary writes in the Sunday Times:

"Some key decision makers in Israel fear that unless they attack Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities in the next few months, while George W Bush is still president, there will not be another period when they can rely on the United States as being anywhere near as supportive in the aftermath of a unilateral attack. In the past 40 years there have been few occasions when I have been more concerned about a specific conflict escalating to involve, economically, the whole world."

Warning signs of an Israeli strike on Iran

October Surprise, anyone?