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....

[Sean]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

Curious here, rather than pointing an accusatory finger, but why don't you trust him?

It's not based on any one statement as much as it is his overall behavior. That and the few Iranian families I know out here in southern California who, across the board, tell me with confidence that they believe he's basically "crazy". And no, my distrust and dislike of the man doesn't translate into any support of the idea of some kind of military action against Iran.

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

Or rather, do you trust him any less than any of the other players in this quagmire, and if so, why?

Hm. I think talking about trusting politicians comparatively is sort of a moot point when you get right down to it. What it comes down to for me was that I was just a little surprised to see the responses here to these new statements from Ahmadinejad. Simply put, for me, they change nothing about my feelings towards the man. But it seems that they may have changed the views of some people here, yes?

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by Sean

Hm. I think talking about trusting politicians comparatively is sort of a moot point when you get right down to it. What it comes down to for me was that I was just a little surprised to see the responses here to these new statements from Ahmadinejad. Simply put, for me, they change nothing about my feelings towards the man. But it seems that they may have changed the views of some people here, yes?

Well, you know me. I have never been of the "bomb the bastards" frame of mine, no matter who the "bastards" in question happen to be. Middle way and all that, eh?

But I must also confess to having thought he didn't have all his dogs on one lead, and wasn't to be trusted until I started digging a little deeper. Firstly the fiasco that was the British Navy/Straits of Hormuz affair, with the blurring of truth as to where the Navy boat was when it was captured; I know my govt are capable of weasel words, but I didn't realise the extent to which they would actually tell huge great big porkie pies and expect us to swallow them whole.

And secondly, the realisation that the "wipe Israel from the map" statement was in fact never said by him at all. It takes the worst possible bad faith to translate what he actually said as being a threat of genocide. If I were to say "The Archbishop said this occupying regime in Iraq must vanish from the pages of time" is that me threatening to wipe the US and the UK off the map? Nuh-uh.

And! I really must stop starting sentences with conjunctions because it is bad grammar.

Edit: And! ... further grist to the mill here, from Richard Silverstein in the Grauniad (yes I know I am quoting liberal lefty media here for the most part, before anyone whacks me for it.)

[Deckard]

From what I've seen and heard of him, I neither trust him nor like him. He strikes me as devious, and someone who I would hate to see with nuclear capability, despite the inherent unfairness in that position.

(EDIT: Ahmadinejad, not Richard Silverstein. Obviously!)

Having said that, I also remain deeply suspicious about how 'our side' is playing and presenting things, for reasons which I've given over the last couple of years.

I never forget that we're far more enlightened and yes, better, than Iran in many respects, but I also never forget that we're probably more morally bankrupt in a few other ways, and, with our more sophisticated military and media machine, capable of much greater duplicity than Iran is in its current state.

Do I trust Bush?
No.

Do I trust Ahmadinejad?
Even less so.

Hopefully this won't get boiled down to a 'forgiving post'.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

From what I've seen and heard of him, I neither trust him nor like him. He strikes me as devious, and someone who I would hate to see with nuclear capability, despite the inherent unfairness in that position.

(EDIT: Ahmadinejad, not Richard Silverstein. Obviously!)

Having said that, I also remain deeply suspicious about how 'our side' is playing and presenting things, for reasons which I've given over the last couple of years.

I never forget that we're far more enlightened and yes, better, than Iran in many respects, but I also never forget that we're probably more morally bankrupt in a few other ways, and, with our more sophisticated military and media machine, capable of much greater duplicity than Iran is in its current state.

Do I trust Bush?
No.

Do I trust Ahmadinejad?
Even less so.

Hopefully this won't get boiled down to a 'forgiving post'.

Not at all. In fact, your post was the only one of the first four that I wasn't referring to at all when I made the "forgiving" comment. And just to be clear, it's not like I took the other three to be saying "oh - I guess he's a great guy" or anything like that about Ahmadinejad. I just meant that the new comments seemed to have carried more weight with a few people than I expected they would given his overall track record. It's gonna take a lot more than a couple vague, debatable statements from him to change my views personally.

As for the rest of your post here, I'm in complete agreement.