Here are three examples of what Mohammadi Khatami has said about Israel. If any of these had been said after Iran officially started its nuclear programme, they would have easily become strong points of anti-Iran propaganda, the same way Ahmadinejad's words have become. Especially given how easily they can totally mistranslates and misquote anyone, if they want to.

Jordan Times, August 1998:

Anani holds talks with Khatami, Iranian officials

TEHRAN (Agencies) August 10, 1998 — Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Jawad Anani, who is on an official visit to Iran, delivered a letter from His Majesty King Hussein to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami Sunday regarding bilateral relations and issues of common concern.

In the message, King Hussein emphasised Jordan's keenness to develop relations with Iran in all fields and laid emphasis on Jordan's concern over the image of Muslims and the need for safeguarding Muslims' common interests, said Anani.

The foreign minister said that the message drew a positive response from the Iranian president who asked that his greetings and wishes for a speedy recovery be conveyed to the King.

According to Anani, the message included an invitation to the Iranian president to visit Jordan. President Khatami accepted the invitation and promised to pay the visit as soon as possible, he said.

At the meeting, President Khatami was reported to have described Israel as a “plague” and “the greatest enemy of Islam and humanity.”

Iranian state radio quoted the president as saying during the meeting that in order” to resist this plague there is no solution except for unity among Muslim countries.”

The Iranian president also said Tehran is “worried about the Zionist regime's bases in the region.”

“Our interests require a serious struggle against the hegemony of the Zionist regime,” he added.

New York Times, November 2000

Muslim Nations Bitterly Denounce Israel at Summit

By SUSAN SACHS

November 13, 2000 -- Leaders of the world's Muslim nations, searching for a way to make their numbers and economic weight count, bitterly condemned Israel today and promised the Palestinians their full political and financial support.

At the summit meeting of the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, held in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar, African, Asian and Arab rulers made the Palestinian-Israel conflict the centerpiece of their opening speeches.

While Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was engaged in peace talks, the Palestinians' fate had receded from the limelight at recent Islamic meetings. But with this conference, the first in three years and convened in the midst of a Palestinian uprising, a tone of aggression replaced earlier hints of moderation.

The Iranian president, Mohammad Khatami, whose government has never recognized Israel or endorsed Mr. Arafat's policy of negotiation, called Israel a ''terrorist racist Zionist regime'' and urged ''resolute action'' to punish it.

Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a pivotal American ally in the Middle East, urged Islamic countries either to freeze or to drastically curtail their relations with Israel. In a warning to the United States, he also called on Muslim leaders to break relations with any country that opens an embassy in Jerusalem.

Despite the show of support for Mr. Arafat, the delegates were split on how to show their displeasure with Israel. Some of the more traditionally hostile nations like Iran, Syria and Sudan, called for a full boycott of Israel. But 20 of the members of the Islamic Conference -- most of them African and Central Asian nations -- maintain full diplomatic relations with Israel.

Led by officials from Egypt, Turkey and Jordan, representatives of those nations openly rejected the more radical calls for a complete severing of relations with Israel.

A draft of a proposed final communique from the meeting, prepared by foreign ministers before the meeting opened, suggested that the conference ''invite'' its member states to reduce their contacts with Israel.

For Mr. Arafat, the three-day conference could provide solid political backing for his next move -- whether it is a renewal of negotiations or a continuation of the fighting -- from the often divided Muslim leadership.

In particular, the Islamic meeting is expected to give him full support for his demand that Israel relinquish control over Arab East Jerusalem. But, if their past behavior is a guide, the Islamic leaders are also likely to leave it up to Mr. Arafat to negotiate a final status with Israel. The Palestinian leader has said he can not make any decision about the city without other Muslim and Arab leaders behind him, or without Christians. To underline the point, Mr. Arafat brought three Arab Christian clerics to the meeting.

Jerusalem, once controlled by Jordan and conquered by Israel in 1967, contains sites that Jews, Muslims and Christians consider holy and is at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Clashes in the city in late September sparked the wider fighting that has killed more than 200 people, nearly all of them Palestinians, in the last six weeks.

An outpouring of anti-Israeli feeling in their own countries has put pressure on many Arab and Islamic leaders to pay more than lip service to the Palestinian cause. Mr. Arafat told delegates that Israeli blockades of the Palestinian areas and the past weeks of fighting have cost the Palestinian economy $900 million.

Correction: November 15, 2000, Wednesday An article on Monday about a meeting of Muslim countries in Qatar at which Israel was denounced misstated the extent of Jordan's control of Jerusalem before the 1967 Middle East war. Jordan controlled only East Jerusalem and the Old City; Israel controlled the rest of Jerusalem.

IRNA, November 2000:

President Khatami urges formation of int'l war crimes tribunal for Israel

Doha, Nov 12, IRNA -- Iran's President Mohammad Khatami urged here Sunday the special meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) on Palestine to make attempts for formation of an "international war crimes tribunal" for the occupied Palestine under the auspices of the United Nations.

Noting that OIC shoulders an onerous responsibility at this critical juncture, President Khatami warned that the catastrophic situation in Palestine is even graver and more systematic than the crimes committed in Yugoslavia and Rwanda in terms of nature and dimension.

"Had the Zionist terrorism, mass killings and forcing the original inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes been effectively countered at the international level, the world should not have witnessed such immense crimes against humanity in this subjugated land today." He said "If we do not stand vigorously against the ongoing war crimes, one should expect more crimes in the future." Khatami labeled "illegitimate" the Zionist regime and said "What happens today in Palestine is a demand for the most fundamental and inalienable rights of the oppressed Palestinians."

The former OIC chairman took a sharp swipe at the self-declared supporters of human rights, saying "In spite of all humanitarian claims of certain powers, in particular the United States, they regrettably stood by usurpers and confronted right holders, thus violating the basic principles of human rights." The Islamic Republic does not recognize the Jewish state and has always urged a jihad (holy war) against that atrocious regime.

Khatami also called on OIC member states to impose "comprehensive economic, political and international sanctions" against Israel. "The Sanction Committee of the OIC should seriously explore ways and means of economic embargo of Israel." He stressed "It is essential for those member states that have not yet severed their diplomatic relations with Israel; relations that should not have ever been established, to break at the shortest possible time their ties with this regime in response to the volition of the Islamic Ummah and the public opinion of the nations."

Khatami thanked the Qatari Government for its closure of the Israeli trade office in Doha after calls by Muslim states. Touching on the Palestinian intifadha (uprising) movement, Khatami said a "comprehensive mechanism should be created to support the intifadha as the legitimate resistance against the occupation and suppression." The Palestinian uprising has cost more than 200 lives over the past six weeks, mostly Palestinians.

He reaffirmed his previous calls in the opening summit of the 9th OIC earlier today that "the state of Palestine should be established with Al-Qods as its capital to secure the inalienable sovereignty right of the Palestinians over their homeland."

In the opening ceremony, he called for firm action and proposed a Middle East peace plan at the outset of an Islamic summit aimed at uniting the Muslim world behind the Palestinians in their conflict with Israel. Khatami called for the "return of all Palestinian refugees to Palestine" and a democratic referendum among the original Muslim, Jewish and Christian inhabitants to decide on a future form of the government in Palestine. Iran, Sunday, passed the presidency of OIC to Qatar for a three-year term. AK/HR End

What kind of Leftist magazine it is when its arguments and positions about Iran, Valenzuela, Cuba, etc. are identical to those labelled as the Right?

Now, I ask you, which country in the Middle East could inspire 'hostile radical Islamic response' except for one: Israel.

I'm sure any real journalist can verify this and discredit this blatant push for an invasion of Iran. Do they still make those kind of journalists?

I would like to emphasise on the positive and productive effects of this gaze , however. A lot to work and think on.

But I haven't given up the temptation to wrote a separate essay with this very sketchy idea of internet subaltern, based on the case of Fatemeh Rajabi, who is a pious woman, a pro-Ahmadinejad commentator and a persistent blogger with an unusually sharp language. She who also happens to be the wife of Gholam-Hossein Elham, the current government's spokesperson and the minister of Justice.

My mains interest in her derives from the fact the because o f her sharp prose against Rafsanjani and Khatami, her blog has been filtered (her older filtered blog), her website attacked by 'hackers', and her Iranian web hosting provider has also kicked her out. She has also been the subject of terribly sexist and vicious personal attacks by the supporters of Rafsanjani in the from of serious or satirical comments, including the persistent erotic and sexist flow of bad jokes by Ebrahim (Ibrahim) Nabavi. All this, while she has totally been ignored by the loud advocates of free speech or even women's rights.

The following is all NED's grants to Afkhami's organization:

2007

Women’s Learning Partnership for Rights, Development, and Peace (WLP)
$25,000
To strengthen and expand the International Women’s Democracy Network. As the secretariat of the Network, WLP will collaborate with regional coordinators to identify and invite into the Network new members, create regional listservs to provide a forum for members to share experiences, and encourage partnerships and initiatives among participants. The Network will also create an online resource center to disseminate information on democratic development and political participation for women.

Women’s Learning Partnership for Rights, Development, and Peace (WLP)
$599,888
To strengthen women’s leadership capacity in Muslim-majority countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa. WLP will continue to develop, translate, and publish culture-specific leadership learning materials; conduct extensive leadership training programs for women and girls; carry out capacity-building activities in conjunction with partner organizations; and engage in advocacy and networking to promote women’s rights.

2006

Women's Learning Partnership for Rights, Development and Peace (WLP)
$599,800
To address obstacles to women's empowerment and participation in predominantly Muslim countries. WLP will continue to strengthen women's leadership capacity in selected countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Activities will include the publication of innovative training materials; organization of extensive leadership training programs for women and girls; and advocacy and networking to promote women's rights and participation.

2004

Women's Learning Partnership for Rights, Development and Peace
$596,578*
To continue to strengthen women's leadership capacity in selected countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The leadership training program for women and girls in twelve Muslim majority countries will include the development of culture specific leadership learning materials, creation of a new prototype NGO capacity-building curriculum to enhance partner organizations' institutional capacity and the development of multimedia resources and communication tools.

2003

Women’s Learning Partnership for Rights, Development and Peace
$395,255
To continue the final phase of a three-phase project to strengthen women’s leadership capacity by creating multimedia, culture-specific educational tools for individuals and organizations that will cultivate and strengthen women’s participation and leadership in building civil society.

2002

Women's Learning Partnership
$60,635
To support travel costs for participants in the first of five Regional Roaming Institute (RRI) training-of-trainer sessions in Amman, Jordan. RRI is a capacity-building multimedia institution. The training sessions will equip local facilitators to more effectively empower participants in their own local workshops to take leadership roles within their communities.

Women's Learning Partnership
$165,000
To create multimedia, culture-specific education tools for individuals and organizations in the Global South that will strengthen women's participation in building civil society. WLP will implement leadership-training programs for women and girls in twelve Muslim-majority countries and will collaborate with partner organizations to develop culture-specific training materials in ten languages.

The interesting thing is that among all other candidate, it was Baqer Ghalibaf and then Ali Larijani who were official members of the Sepah and has had the strongest ties. Especially Ghalibaf who was until a few years before the commander of the Sepah air forces. So how come he couldn't use the Sepah network to win or manipulate the elections, but Ahmadinejad could?

FT: Where were you during the Iran-Iraq war [1980-1988]? Were you in the war fronts?

SH: We have to talk about the Cultural Revolution in more details later because it was the origin of many developments in universities and culture in the country.

After the Cultural Revolution, a council was formed upon Imam Khomeini’s order. The Cultural Revolution Council spent two or three years so that a new system would take place in the universities to review the content of university courses and re-write new one based on the Iranian society’s needs and necessities.

This led to closure of universities for two years, during which a very big potential of students was released from universities. Many students were drawn to Jahad-e Sazandegi [Construction Jihad by which ideologically-motivated forces embark on social services to poorer and rural areas], some were drawn to the Revolutionary Guards [the elite military force] and some went to deprived areas to be of service [to people]. We [Mr Ahmadi-Nejad and myself] chose to serve people in poor areas.

We went to West Azarbaijan province [northwestern Iran] in 1359 [1980] together with some other students and accepted some executive responsibilities in the province.

At that time I think Mr Ahmadi-Nejad was Maku local governor and later he became Khoy local governor. After a year or a year and a half, I left Azerbaijan for Kurdistan province, which was during the war and Kurdistan as a border province was under the attack of the Baath regime. Mr Ahmadi-Nejad stayed in West Azarbaijan province.

I stayed in Kurdistan almost from 1981-1988. Meanwhile, in 1986 I continued my studies part time at the university.

During these years, we were active in separate [places]. I was active in Kurdistan province and he was in West Azarbaijan. Later he returned to university for continuing his studies.

FT: You were in contact with each other?

SH: He was busy with his own work, but friendships have always continued. Always

FT: Weren’t you involved in any war activities?

SH: In Kurdistan I was deputy governor for political affairs till 1985 and then became advisor to the provincial governor general to be able to continue my studies. I was in charge of Sanadaj municipality for some time, too.

FT: Was Mr Ahmadi-Nejad in the war fronts during the war years?

SH: Considering that his course of study was civil engineering he helped engineering [in war fronts], but not as an official member [of the Revolutionary Guards] rather like other people in the form of Basij [ideologically-motivated voluntary forces].

FT: Was he a member of Basij organisation?

SH: I don’t know.

FT: But you know Mr Ahmadi-Nejad is introduced, in particular in the western press as a former Revolutionary Guards commander.

SH: No. He has never been a member or an official member of the Revolutionary Guards.

FT: And you say his presence in was only voluntary?

SH: It was when necessary.

FT: How long did this “necessity” last during the war? Did he spend years or months?

SH: I don’t know precisely. He would help when necessary. Considering that time [has passed], I don’t remember exactly. He used to help for logistical support, engineering, war engineering and was present in war fronts. But how long it lasted and in what form it was are the questions that you must ask him.

FT: What was Mr Ahmadi-Nejad doing after the war?

SH: Mr Ahmadi-Nejad continued his studies during this time and fortunately he was very talented and successful in his studies. Although he obtained a scholarship to study PhD abroad, he preferred to continue his studies in Iran.

Two Israeli journalists scrap ethics for scoop (Daily Star)

Jewish reporters endanger lives of Lebanese citizens interviewed under false pretences

By Nour Samaha

Source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=83870

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

BEIRUT: When two Israeli re-porters entered Lebanon under false pretenses last week to conduct reports on Lebanese life a year after the summer 2006 war with Israel, they not only broke Lebanese law, but also violated codes of ethics in journalism and endangered the lives of those they interviewed, according to professors and residents who spoke to The Daily Star Monday.

Lisa Goldman and Rinat Malkes flew into Lebanon from Amman on their respective Canadian and Brazilian passports. Both Israeli citizens, both working on reports to be published in Israel - a country officially in a state of war with Lebanon - they embarked on deceiving Lebanese officials and the general public in order to get their exclusive scoops.

"The word Israel must not be mentioned in Lebanon," said Malkes in her article in the right-wing Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot, describing how the two journalists cut out the labels from their clothes before arriving in Beirut to hide any Hebrew inscription that may reveal their true identities.

Once in Lebanon, the two went their separate ways - Malkes traveled to the South, while Goldman remained in Beirut.

In footage aired on Israel's Channel 10 news, Goldman showed snippets of interviews she conducted with local residents and misinformed viewers that only one small section of the southern suburbs was hit by Israel. "I particularly remember the BBC's hourly reports during the war, each one beginning with the following [paraphrased] sentence: 'As Israel continues its relentless pounding of southern Beirut ...' But according to several residents ... the Israeli air strikes were actually very much pinpointed on an area in the center of the Dahiyeh called the 'security square' - the area where senior Hizbullah leaders lived," she said on Pajamas Media.

Yet Goldman, who admitted that she never went to the southern suburbs of Beirut, failed to mention the surrounding areas that were affected, such as the bridges in the Dahiyeh that are still being repaired, local media stations, Chiyah and other neighborhoods further away from the "security square" - areas that are not known to host Hizbullah leaders.

One Lebanese who grew up in Dahiyeh and was interviewed by Goldman stated that she not only misquoted him, but deceived him from the start, supplying him with a false name and misinforming him that she was writing for a European paper as a Canadian. "She completely hid her Israeli nationality, saying she was from Vancouver, and gave me a different name from Lisa Goldman ... she also said she was writing for a European paper," he said on Monday.

The Beirut resident, who asked to remain anonymous, added: "When she wrote about me she said I had told her Israel only bombed the security square, which is wrong - I said they were hitting everything ... She also gave the impression that I talked of Israel in a good light, which is certainly not the case."

"If I'd known she was Israeli, I would've had her arrested," he added. "What she did was extremely wrong, and it could get me into a lot of trouble - she has me doing an interview on camera ... my family are extremely worried about repercussions from officials for talking to her ... But I didn't know she was Israeli."

According to Magda Abu-Fadil, the director of the journalism training program at the American University of Beirut, the mere fact that a journalist would misidentify herself or conduct an interview under false pretenses, is in itself unethical.

"In general terms, I don't think you should assume a false identity unless something like national security is involved or the public good is at stake, like saving someone's life," she said. "But this is not the case here - this situation does not fall under the category."

This point was also reiterated by Ramez Maluf, a professor of journalism at the Lebanese American University. "It is common practice for standards of journalism, where they exist, to state that reporters should not obtain information under false pretense," he said. "But that rule is broken all the time, often by invoking some higher moral objective."

"If you believe that your job is to inform your public about vital issues of interest and importance to them as best you can, then you may excuse yourself from breaking any rules," he continued. "The important issue then is whether you can actually report fairly when you do so under false pretense."

Yet the deception may have serious repercussions on those who were unwittingly taken in under false pretenses by the two Israeli journalists. "You have to ask, how did they represent themselves, and did they endanger anyone locally?" Abu-Fadil asked. "Suspicions may arise and people may not want to deal with those that were interviewed if they think they are in contact with Israelis."

Malkes' report on the South of the country painted an image of a Hizbullah-controlled area that has achieved little in terms of reconstruction since the end of the war. She begins by incorrectly stating that Hizbullah's approval was necessary to visit villages in the South, when in fact approval to visit areas in the South is not obtained through Hizbullah, but through the Lebanese Army, who have maintained control of the area since the end of the war last August.

In addition, Malkes gave the false impression that Hizbullah is in charge of the reconstruction effort in the South, citing Bint Jbeil as an example of how little had been done over the past year. "Life has not yet returned to normal," she wrote. But the Qatari mission in Lebanon is tasked with the reconstruction effort in Bint Jbeil.

"The power supply is also interrupted," she added, apparently unaware that the power cuts in the South are unrelated to the war, and have long plagued that part of the country.

The question on everybody's lips now, however, is what can be done to ensure this does not happen again? Abu-Fadil suggested a system for monitoring foreign journalists who enter Lebanon to check their backgrounds. "We don't want a police state, but by the same token, is there anything than can keep track of who these people are?" she asked. "It is much harder to do these days with new technology, but we need to be more vigilant and organized on how to deal with journalists."

Maluf added that monitoring all foreign journalists may not be necessary, but because Lebanon is currently in a state of war with Israel, there should be a monitoring system of "any and all Israeli incursions of any kind into our country," he said.

"Let them rely on the wire services" to get news from Lebanon, he added.

The only sort of sanctions she is willing to support are direct, political sanctions that target Iran's leaders, from those involved in the Iranian nuclear program to the country's highest officials. Such sanctions, she suggests, could restrict these officials' travel abroad and could order the seizure of privately held assets. In addition, Ebadi believes, the world's countries could collectively shun the Iranian state. "What I mean is that all the countries of the world should reduce or lower the level of their political relations with Iran, so that they convince Iran to improve the situation of human rights. This was you can isolate the government of Iran without really damaging the people," she says.

But the best course is one of dialogue. "The political sanctions should be used as a last resort," she says. "Dialogue has to take place at three levels: at the level of people and civil society, among members of parliament of both countries, and by heads of government of both countries. And negotiations have to be direct and public."

After all, she has to give them at least something back for all the financial and political support she has recovered in the past few years. This also includes her utter silence about the savage treatment the people of Gaza are getting from Israel.

Ahmadinejad has courageously reversed 16 years of disastrous free-market economic policies of Rafsanjani and Khatami which were gradually destroying the entire dream of the Iranian nation who revolted against the tyrannical and dependent regime of the Shah and basically selling Iran to the American corporations, IMF and the World Bank.

These are the same people who, in their Persian-language media, have been crying foul the whole past three years that Ahmadinejad has driven out the senior Rafsanjanist corrupt businessmen/politicians out of office and have been calling him a socialist and comparing him with Chavez. And they sell Ahmadinejad to the American democrats as a conservative.

One should ask them what is really conservative about Ahmadinejad. Econimically no one has ever cared more about the distribution of oil income than him. Politically, he has done the most radical reforms in the bureaucratic structure of Iran. (One example is decentralising the central budgeting organization and distributing across each province.) Culturally, he has given permission to the first Western pop musician (Chris de Burgh) to come to Iran an perform publicly. Socially, he has tried to allow women into the stadiums which Khatami and Rafsanjani never had the balls to do so. And these are just a few examples.

If despite all these things, they still dare to call this guy a (neo)conservative, then what can one label Khatami and Rafsanjani? How can get away with such nonsense without showing even one single factor that Ahmadinejad has in common with the American neoconservatives?

I wonder how far they are going in bashing this man and disrespecting millions of people who chose him against Rafsanjani, the true reincarnation of the Shah.

Interestingly, the author of the article, David Cockcroft, has never written for the News Statesman before and has not disclosed that as the secretary general of the NED-funded International Transport Federation (in addition to funds though the Solidairty Center) has followed Osanloo's case for the past couple of years.

http://www.solidaritycenter.org/content.asp?contentid=694

This week it was about China and I'm sure when in one of the coming weeks it's about Venezuella, John Pilger would be very angry at them.

To be honest, even though I really admire Pilger's unconditional objection to foreign intervention, i wonder why he doesn't apply the same standards when it comes to Iran. Is he too frightened of the 'Islamist extremist' label that the Foreign Office's embedded 'leftist' and 'activists would put on him?

If that's the case, it's entirely understandable, but it would reveal a major inconsistency in his positions. But I'm not ruling out that he is not knowledgeable enough about what is really happening in Iran.

P.S: Would it be lovely if the Amnesty International would take me to court because I said they have been hijacked and utilized by the Foreign Office, NED etc.? I am way ready for that.

Print partner details

Project details

Project details