What Did Ahmadinejad Really Say?
By Robert Parry
September 19, 2009
It is an important principle of journalism that when someone makes a statement, especially a controversial one with grave implications, the comment should be put in the fullest possible context so the reader can make an informed judgment. But that rule doesn't seem to apply when the New York Times writes about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
In a front-page story on Saturday, the Times three times (once in a sub-head and twice in the article) reported that Ahmadinejad called the World War II Holocaust of European Jews a "lie" during an annual "Quds Day" speech showing solidarity with the Palestinian people. But the Times offered no fuller context for the quote.
The White House and other U.S. officials reacted to the "lie" remark, which also was featured in other Western news accounts, with understandable outrage. However, Iran's Press TV reported that "Ahmadinejad did not deny the Holocaust, but raised some questions about the matter, asking Western powers for a logical answer."
Press TV quoted Ahmadinejad as saying: "If the Holocaust, as you claim, is true, why don't you allow a probe into the issue?" Press TV added that Ahmadinejad was "calling the Zionist regime a symbol of lies and deception founded on 'colonialist' attitudes. The Iranian president also asked why Palestinians had to pay for the genocide of Jews at the hands of Europeans."
So what did Ahmadinejad really say?
In the, Ahmadinejad calls the "pretext" for founding the state of Israel "a lie," but he doesn't spell out precisely what he means by "pretext." In the context, the word seems to refer to the Holocaust, but arguably his reference to "a lie which relies on ... a mythical claim" could be about Biblical claims to the land of Palestine that Zionist organizations cite.
As Press TV says, Ahmadinejad frames his skeptical comments about the Holocaust within Western hostility toward the scholarship of some European and American Holocaust skeptics (often called "deniers") who dispute details such as the estimated number of six million Jews killed by the Nazis.
But some of that supposed scholarship has been widely viewed as an excuse by neo-fascists and anti-Semites to diminish the horror of the Nazi extermination campaign against Jews and other groups considered undesirable by Adolf Hitler and his German Third Reich.
If you wish to make up your own mind about Ahmadinejad's "lie" comment, here is his office's English-language summary of the speech, which was delivered in Farsi, the Persian language:
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Friday that the Holocaust black box should be opened.
"Addressing Tehrani Friday prayers worshipers as pre-sermon lecturer, President Ahmadinejad said, 'Our call over the past four years has been if the Holocaust claimed by the Zionist regime and its allies is true, why they (Zionists and westerners) do not allow any research on it?'
"President Ahmadinejad said research on everything is free but Holocaust is the key to a sealed fact and black box.
"He went on questioning, 'When the event is so much important for which a land is occupied, such a war is waged, millions of people are killed, injured and made homeless, thousands of families are ruined and the Middle East is kept under the shadow of insecurity, why the black box should not be decoded so that facts and realities are revealed to all?'
"He said Palestine is still the most important issue of the world of Islam. 'We do believe that if war is waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is because of Zionists' provocation. If Sudan is suppressed it is because of Zionists' temptations. Zionists are behind all the conspiracies of the arrogance and colonialism. They do not allow the main factor of excuses for Palestine occupation be examined and surveyed.'
"He added, 'The pretext for establishing the Zionist regime is a lie; a lie which relies on an unreliable claim, a mythical claim, and the occupation of Palestine has nothing to do with the Holocaust.'
"The Iranian Chief Executive said Iranian nation once again announced today that are standing firm in defense of Islamic Revolution aspirations and of the late Imam Khomeini.
"He said Iranian nation will never lay down the flag of dignity, pride and freedom loving.
"He then noted that the World Quds Day marks unity of Iranian nation and the world Muslims.
"President Ahmadinejad said the World Quds Day is the day of unity of the community of human beings against the corrupt and tyrannical powers."
Though interpretations of Ahmadinejad's words can be debated, two things appear undeniable. First, Ahmadinejad continues to make provocative statements that are offensive to many people around the world.
And second, the New York Times and other Western news organizations are failing to live up to their own principles of objectivity, apparently out of an intense animosity toward Iran's president.
Shortly after Iran's disputed presidential election in June, a "news analysis" coauthored by New York Times executive editor Bill Keller opened up with an old joke about Ahmadinejad looking into a mirror and saying "male lice to the right, female lice to the left," a reference to his rise from the street and his conservative Islamic religious views.
Later, the Times editors joined defeated candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi in rejecting the notion of a vote recount by Iran's Guardian Council, which oversees elections. The Mousavi camp instead demanded an entirely new election, which they failed to get.
"Even a full recount would be suspect," the Times wrote in an editorial. "How could anyone be sure that the ballots were valid?"
But the resistance of Mousavi and his backers to a partial or complete recount prevented the uncovering of solid evidence that might have proven that Ahmadinejad did rig the election, a point that has become conventional wisdom in the Western media but which lacks solid proof (unlike, for instance, the widespread evidence of fraud in the recent Afghan election.)
Mousavi's rigging case rests primarily on the argument that Ahmadinejad ran up large majorities in poor districts because he had distributed food and raised pay, tactics that may be criticized as the workings of "a political machine," but normally don't fall under the definition of electoral fraud. [For more on the Iranian election, see Consortiumnews.com's "Taking Sides on Iran."]
As tensions with Iran mount, it is easy for U.S. news organizations to cast aside journalistic principles in favor of looking tough and patriotic. In a similar context, when America's top enemy was Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein, the Times and other major U.S. news outlets helped whip up a war fever and contributed to a political climate that equated questioning U.S. government claims with a lack of patriotism and even sympathy for Hussein.
The chief consequence of that violation of journalistic standards was an aggressive war that has left more than 4,300 U.S. soldiers dead along with estimates of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
Will anyone ever interview Ahmadinejad correctly? A proper interview would not edit his replies but would force him to either 1) openly refuse to answer or 2) give unequivocal positions not open to debate or twisting by Zionists.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)