Israeli President Shimon Peres met with Cheney and came out saying that the U.S. should not strike Iranian nuke facilities, let diplomacy do its magic.
-
-
- Church of Scotland accepts controversial report on Israel/Palestine 0
- Half of Israel’s eligible youth don’t enlist– and ranks of … 3
- Chelsea Clinton’s multifaith initiative 3
- More on the ‘creepy’ al-Dura report 7
- Exile and the Prophetic: Does John Kerry have the keys … 0
- Wolf Blitzer looks for a religious state 5
- Kerry goes for the Hail Mary, but Obama is punting 16
- ‘Forward’ piece on destruction of Palestinian neighborhood fronting Western Wall … 15
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 2240
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 1716
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1699
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1359
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 952
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 809
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 442
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
-
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 93
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 87
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- Dershowitz should stop lying about Tutu’s record 56
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 48
-
- RT @Marium_Y: Video of Code Pink's Medea Benjamin being escorted out of Obama speech #Guantanamo #drones: http://t.co/DyTimMfmwb via @ryanj…, 16 mins ago
- RT @kumpfj: Check out picture and caption of a "delighted" Kerry in the West Bank- @Mondoweiss that's serious fodder for you guys http://t.…, 17 mins ago
- RT @allisonkilkenny: Hero RT @RosieGray Medea Benjamin being taken out of the room http://t.co/izmaBLY6Xq, 24 mins ago
- RT @tejucole: Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family. As rescuers retrieved bodies, drones continued to hover, firing more m…, 25 mins ago
- RT @jeremyscahill: In disrupting Obama's speech, @medeabenjamin asked POTUS a question no journalist has: What about the killing of 16 yr o…, 25 mins ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by requiring tourists to obtain military permit (18)
- Rusty Pipes: This is going to be a surprise for American Christian tourists: you need a military permit from Israel...
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… immense’ (42)
- Pamela Olson: People of Jewish descent, culture, and/or religion have done, discovered, and written about...
- Kerry goes for the Hail Mary, but Obama is punting (16)
- Hostage: I think Kerry is just playing for time and letting the clock run out yet another deadline. The European...
- Philip Munger: That’s very good Chas Freeman, and appears to be an important speech, that will, no doubt, land...
- Ramzi Jaber: Peres: Wake me up when this gets real!
- More on the ‘creepy’ al-Dura report (7)
- Annie Robbins: hamas? did israel’s committee even accuse hamas? where did you get that? or is it part of a new...
- TonyRiley: Nobody really knows what happened – it’s 50/50 – it could have been the IDF, or it...
- Half of Israel’s eligible youth don’t enlist– and ranks of ‘gray resisters’ grow (3)
- Annie Robbins: not that i know of citizen. but on a related note; some good friends of mine just lost a dear friend...
- Wolf Blitzer looks for a religious state (5)
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by requiring tourists to obtain military permit (18)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
On the Israeli side of things, Perez and Livni have voiced concern with Russia placing antiaircraft missiles in Syria and Russia assisting Iran so maybe it is in Israel's interest to tone down the rhetoric that Cheney loves to use
2 obvious interpretations:
Like Saakashvilli declared a ceasefire, only to attack within hours, it could be psyops, ie. reverse psychology, let the enemy relax etc. Which would be patriotic.
I actually doubt that scenario, (maybe wishful thinking)
The other interpretation:
After meeting this incompetent baffoon, God help us if that is what our partner is.
Mafish Falastin,
I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you over this issue. I've seen the quote translated by many Farsi experts, and I've seen it translated by Zionist sympathizers. Since I don't know Farsi, I don't know what the truth is. I think the best way to figure things out is to use common sense: Would Iran, knowing that Israel has hundreds of nukes and is allied with the U.S. and its thousands of nukes, publicly threaten Israel? Of course not. Israel is the aggressor. Iran, having seen what happened to Iraq, and knowing that it is mentioned in Israel's "security" plans just as Iraq was, is simply trying to defend itself, as any rational person would in the face of overpowering entities which wish to do it harm. That is the truth, plain and simple. Anything else is Zionist obfuscation.
Incidentally, in answer to your question about Al Jazeera, there have been many reports of its bureaus being overrun by Zionist sympathizers. Obviously, not being immediately involved with it, I have no way of knowing, other than to recognize a familiar pattern of Zionist behavior that's been played out in the media for years now, ad nauseum.
higginslads,
You won't get into it with me because you'll lose. It was in the official Iranian press as reported. The Islamist apologists like you will try to do anything to deny the truth but the truth is too strong.
Israel has allegedly had nukes for DECADES, and never talked about "wiping out" another country. Iran is developing nukes and does.
Iran is the aggressor and we won't tolerate it.
Iraq had nothing to do with Israel. WE destroyed their nuclear facilities in 1981, and since then haven't seen them as any kind of threat. That's why when this Gulf War began and some general toldus to walk around with gas masks in hand, nobody listened; not even where Scuds hit in 1991.
Incidentally, if you really believe that Al Jazeera is in any way Zionist, then you definitely need the jaws of life to exract your head from your tuches.
But then again, why am I surprised?
Mafish Falastin,
Please spare us the "Israel hasn't talked about wiping anyone out" line. Most people reading this site are well aware of Israel's aggressive behavior since it's inception. Obviously, whether one declares its intentions or not has no bearing on its concrete actions. Iran hasn't invaded anyone, unlike the Israeli/U.S. machine. Israel is an occupying power. There is no logical comparison to be made between the two countries. Israel is an occupier and an aggressor. Iran is not.
Incidentally, the link you sent me to the Islamic Republic of Iran broadcasting site (lol – I don't think that's "the official Iranian site," as you labeled it), doesn't work. Was that intentional? Obviously, there is no link verifying that translation from an Iranian site, because the Farsi (correct) version does not say what you want it to say.
Here are some links, though I'm sure you could find them on your own, if you so desired:
link to globalresearch.ca
link to peoplesgeography.com
Here's an article from Arthur Sulzberger's Zionist-leaning NY Times, which at least gives both sides and doesn't come to any definite conclusions, as you do: link to nytimes.com
Again, given the nature of Zionist obfuscation, I am inclined to believe the actual translation of the quote is this:
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.
And remember, it's really all moot anyway, if we use our common sense, knowing that Israel and its U.S. ally have nukes and Iran doesn't, and knowing that Iran knows this, and knowing that Israel planned Iraq's demise and then accomplished it with its U.S. ally's help, and knowing that Iran is mentioned in Israel's "security" plans, and knowing that, all this being true, the president of Iran has no power over Iranian foreign policy anyway…
I stand by my claim that Al Jazeera may well have become inundated by Zionists. Here is but one small example, reported in the Israeli press:
""Al-Jazeera's silence is unforgivable," a Jordanian newspaper wrote. "This network leads the normalization campaign with the Zionist enemy and is the only one which hosts the official spokespersons of the enemy's army and government."
link to ynetnews.com
Here's an interesting take on Al Jazeera, from Jeff Weintraub blog:
link to jeffweintraub.blogspot.com
"No one can deny that this is an unusual analysis, and it certainly challenges the conventional wisdom about Al Jazeera–a station that naive people generally regard as being hostile to Israel and the US. (However, it does conform to the larger conventional wisdom in the Middle East and the Muslim world, which is that every conceivable problem must be the result of a "Zionist" and/or Zionist-American plot.)
The Al-Jazeera network was founded in 1997, ostensibly to create a new movement in the static media of the Arab world, which are mostly government controlled, and was initially welcomed.
Many media experts believed that the new network would create a revolution in the field of information dissemination, particularly in the Arab states on the Persian Gulf.
However, at the same time, rumors arose suggesting that the network was established by U.S. and Israeli agents in order to present a bad image of Islam to the world.
Some regional experts expressed doubts about the allegations though, because the establishment of a media outlet with the aim of promptly informing Arab nations about the latest world news seemed to be a good idea."
As I said, I don't know what Al Jazeera is really all about, nor do I really care (at least not to the point of wasting too much time studying it). The point is that it wouldn't be at all surprising if it was just a front for something, or if it started out legitimately but then became overrun by Zionist sympathizers, CIA, MI5, Mossad or similar agents. Or maybe, as I think is probably the case with most things, it's some combination thereof. I'm not a complete conspiracy theorist, Mafish, but I'll be sure to invest in a jaws of life just in case :)
Israel has invaded Egypt, Lebanon (thrice), Syria, and Palestine, and it continues to occupy parts of Labanon, Syria and, effectively, all of Palestine.
The Egyptians tell us that Israeli did indeed threaten to nuke them, as it has threatened Iran.
Pacificst Israel is a non-existent ruse. Why does Israel not accept its legal borders?
Hey Mayfish is Side Curled Bob! aka Curly
Higginslad,
Mafish is accurate on this one.
Al-Jazeera reported it from a translations that was directly provided by the Iranian Press Service (I don't know the exact name of the organization), in English.
And, it stated "wiped off the map".
Many Jews and Israelis thought that meant, "genocide", which it might or might not have. It certainly DID mean that Iran regarded Israeli sovereignty as invalid, and actively seeks for it to not exist.
They don't give a shit that Israel is a member of the UN, originally chartered by the UN.
Their military and political confrontation is not conditional as in "if they remove from the 67 borders" but unconditional.
As Hezbollah stated recently, that even if ALL of the disputed territories are returned to Lebanon, they will continue to fight for the "resistance".
There are some romantic "freedom fighters" that I would not willingly fight for, independant of my own Jewishness.
Not surprisingly, zionist apologist Richard Witty is wrong. He probably doesn't care–the facts come in a distant second to his desire to present zionism in a positive light here.
His assertion that the "Iranian Press Service" (in fact, the Iranian Student News Agency) provided the infamous English translation "wiped off the map" is utterly false.
This Agency provided a transcript IN FARSI only. That transcript was used by Ms. Nazila Fathi of the New York Times Tehran Bureau in creating the newspaper's translation, which was then picked up by Reuters and THEN featured in many subsequent reports, including Al-Jazeera's.
Quote:
Text of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Speech
E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Reprints
Save Article
Published: October 30, 2005
This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry.
The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency (www.isnagency.com). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi.
The Iranian press reported the comments of Ahmadinejad IN FARSI.
[Note that the New York Times' regional editor Ethan Bronner, formerly of the Boston Globe's Jerusalem bureau, and who once called Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, "a strange little book," also stood by Ms. Fathi's now widely-discredited translation. Even American zionist propaganda organization MEMRI corrected their reports to change the translation to "from the page of time".]
Richard Witty could pursue the truth, but he continually demonstrates that he in fact prefers convenient, comfortable falsehoods that support his ideological stance. Make your own conclusions as to why.
Al-Jazeera itself reported that they were reporting a translation in English, supplied by the Iranian Press Service.
Don't lame out on this one, MM.
You are repeating what you've been told, not what was reported in the press itself.
This is from wikipedia (trustable as a whole or not)
link to en.wikipedia.org
The translation presented by IRIB has been challenged by Mr. Arash Norouzi, who proposes that the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". He says that the Iranian government News Agency IRIB/IRNA translation is the source of the confusion:
One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.[11]
The phrase 'wiped away' can still be seen on Mr Ahmadinejad's Presidential website:
He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.
In ALL translations, he asserted that he hoped (and prospectively will act) for regime change, eliminating the Zionist entity, eliminating its basis of sovereignty.
I personally doubt the Iranian Foreign Ministry's revision. I think they meant it, then when they realized the consequences in the international reputation adopted a position of "plausible deniability".
If you are going to object to postured deniability on the part of American or Israeli politicians, it would be consistent to similarly object to it among Iranian propagandists.
Nevertheless, the foreign ministries revised translation is antagonistic enough.
As soon as the mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's words began to circulate, Ayatollah Khamenei (who has ultimate authority in Iran) stated unequivocally that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country".
Why does Richard Witty insist on believing the first quote, but disbelieving the second? They're both from those nasty "antisemitic" Iranians.
Richard if you could throw a ball half as well as you toss out idiotic statements, hell you'd have probably thrown a perfect game in the majors by now.
Look at what a dunce you are:
You are repeating what you've been told, not what was reported in the press itself.
No, moron–YOU are the one who is repeating "what YOU've been told" that "was reported in the press itself" (where, in what publication or website, you don't say).
The relevant links that the wikipedia article Ahmadinejad_and_Israel itself cites are here:
- IRIB News speech translation which doesn't even exist – which never existed
- Original New York Times translation: Ahmadinejad as the next Hitler
As I quoted above, from the NY Times piece:
Published: October 30, 2005
This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry.
The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency (www.isnagency.com). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi.
So the lame brain on this matter would be yourself, Witty Wits, blind crusader for a homeland he'll never live in, pompous and ill-informed gasbag interrupting Phil's righteous inquiry into the corruption of American politics by zionism with special pleading and endless unaccountable, incomprehensible rationalization.
An award for you, Witty. You are one of a kind. Useful idiots come no better.
You didn't read my post MM. How surprising.
I stated even if they meant that they would act to remove Israel as Zionist, which they did repeat, that that was bad enough.
You hypocrite.
You oppose the US seeking regime change, but apologize for Iran seeking the same.
And, acting on it with a client, heavily armed, internationally illegal, militia on Israel's border.
You regard that degree of intervention as nothing, but Israel's concern about Iran's acquiring a nuclear weapon as inconsequential.
Its very consequential. Peres has the right angle on it. Accountability, but not through war.
Of course I read what you posted. You posted portions of a questionable and somewhat inaccurate wikipedia article, which I then referenced in my post above.
Wikipedia of course can be a very good resource, provided the user possesses the intelligence to vet the sources referenced.
Of course that's beyond the scope of our favorite blindfolded zion-first crusader. It's no wonder Witty continues to be the unintentional laughing stock of this blog.
His latest admonition is another pearl–see if you can swallow the zio-logic:
Violent intervention that has caused over a million excess deaths in Iraq, by the largest and deadliest military power in the history of the world, is on a par with something the president of Iran obliquely referenced in a speech to university students?
And how many excess deaths did Ahmadinejad's speech produce?
And more relevantly, how many excess deaths has zionism produced in Palestine since its inception?
And how many more will it?
The world turns to Richard Witty for the answers–or more absurd apologism.
Wikipedia Richard? I like to use it to look up when an actor was born or other such trivia, or for geographical write-ups on given locations. As a source for Middle East information? Phil has covered its performance (or lack thereof, as the case may be) in this arena.
higginslads,
The Arabs chose war and the Arabs lost. They pay the price for their own aggression.
They can't "make do" with the 99.9% of the Middle East that they occupy, and that's called "greed".
Again, that link was up until not long ago, and you can find it quoted all over the net.
As to al-Jazeera being a "zionist site", better watch out: There are littel zionists hiding inside your closet too.
Nutter.
''higginslads,
You won't get into it with me because you'll lose.'
People like you never lose. Even when you do, you don't. Evidently this gives you an enormous sense of superiority.
'They pay the price for their own aggression.'
Alan Dershowitz likes to talk about the 'shoe on the other foot' test – where any stipulation for one side of an argument should be applied to the other in the interests of fairness.
It will be interesting to see how he reacts when the Palestinians get the chance to don the footwear. You'd want to hope they don't opt for the jackboot as Israel has done.
You would laugh at such a scenario. It couldn't happen inside the narrow confines of your mind, could it?
People like you always lose because people like me always call you out with the truth- and cold, hard facts. It really is upsetting, isn't it?
Alan Dershowitz likes to talk about the 'shoe on the other foot' test – where any stipulation for one side of an argument should be applied to the other in the interests of fairness.
Been there and done that. In fact, WE accepted a Bantustan-type state that was almost all desert- and we didn't even have access to OUR Jerusalem.
The Philistines would have had a state IN PEACE in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it.
They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it (and Jews would have even been restricted from BUYING land from Arabs).
They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it (and actually claimed that the UN had no such mandate!).
They could have had a state IN PEACE in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from 1948-1967 without any Jews- because the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every last one; but they violently rejected it. In fact, that's exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).
They could have had a state IN PEACE after 1967, but instead, the entire Arab world issued the Khartoum Resolutions:
A. No peace with Israel
B. No recognition of Israel
C. No negotiations with Israel
They would have had a state IN PEACE in 2000 with the Oslo Accords, but they violently rejected it- as always.
The Arabs will just have to learn to "make do" with their own 99.9% of the Middle East- including all of the oil, and stop trying to steal OUR tiny 1/10th of 1% without oil. The Philistines won't have a state here in Israel, and if they don't stop their violence, they won't even exist here anymore. They will have to go to their own land- elsewhere.
I'm happy to see this. Going to Lebanon 9/28, dropping in to Damascus Syria 10/8-10/11. Don't want any surprises!
NB: Most surprises are not announced in advance.
"Israel, the region's sole if undeclared nuclear-armed state, has considered Iran its main strategic threat after repeated predictions of its demise by senior Iranian leaders."
Two interesting points about the above passage, taken from the article that Phil linked to. It mentions Israel's nukes, which everyone knows about, but only fairly recently have they begun to be prominently mentioned in the mainstream press.
Secondly, Israel's "demise" is very misleading, though not quite as much as saying that "Israel should be wiped off the map," which is the typical mistranslation usually offered in the American mainstream. Of course, what Ahmadinejad said was that the "Zionist regime in Israel will disappear with the pages of time…" Regime change, change of ideology – nothing about military confrontation. The only time the Iranians have brought up military action in regards to Israel is as a defense to Israeli aggression. But doesn't the passage, even in its correct translation, IMPLY military aggression towards Israel on the part of Iran, in order to achieve regime change? Say what you will about the Iranian leadership, but one thing they're not is stupid. They're not about to threaten a neighbor who has a couple hundred nukes it's ready, willing, and able to use against them, and who is closely politically allied with a country with the strongest military in the history of the world. Yet, despite these obvious truisms, articles such as this still mislead the reader into thinking that Iran is the aggressor against poor little Israel. Sad.
Scary. What did Cheney tell him?
If its true, and not misdirection, it certainly has nothing to do with the moral evolution of Israel or new moderation by the Cheneyite Neocons. It has to do with the fact that Georgia, a possible staging ground for the air strikes, just got its arse kicked by Russia, and if America digs in any deeper into the suicidal Mideast quagmire by attacking Iran, Russia is going to fill the vacuum — in fact, has already started to.
Boy, it didn’t take the Bush-Clinton-Cheney generation of leaders long to utterly squander the Cold War victory, the incompetent buffoons they are. Of course, any group that can’t see through the Jewish Zionist hustlers can’t be too bright to begin with. Or, worse, is too much like them to care. Zero principles, zero competence. Zero worth.
Phil, are you being Walter Mittied?
I suspect Cheney is assisting the GOP ticket or at bare minimum doesn't want to hurt chances for a McCain victory -especially after the Palin pick gave Republicans huge press coverage. Seems like Cheney needed somebody to put out to the press that the U.S. favors diplomacy – especially after he just committed one billion to the Israeli/U.S pre and post war assisted Georgia (see Friedman NYT's op-ed piece)and Peres was accomadating.
Bomb "bomb Iran" McCain is the neocon great hope to keep this Mideast drive going. The prevailing view is that all bombing action whether Israeli or U.S. accomplished will come post the Nov. election…either with or without McCain elected.
By the time the first Iranian civilians are collateral damage, the Peres statement will be placed in the same pile as so many of the Israeli/U.S statements and actions: Peres statement, Bush's statements, Cheney WMD statements, Tillman investigation, James Miller investigation, Abu Hijlah investigation, Sybyl Edmond"s allegations, the anthrax investigation, masking of settlement building and on ad nauseum …the "dead" or not to be seen pile. Concurrently, the neocon, AIPAC and friends,Cheney,Hadley,Weisglas Feith, Frum, Lieberman, Perle, Hagee U.S. House Foreign Relations Committee,AEI,NESA et al dozer keeps rolling along. Reminds me of a 2003 or 2004 Robert Fisk article on glossed over/swiftboated deaths centered on the British WMD inspector- something about being "Walter Mittied".
I'm with Cheryl. If Peres said it, it can't be true.
higginslads,
Your statement that; "Israel's "demise" is very misleading, though not quite as much as saying that "Israel should be wiped off the map," which is the typical mistranslation usually offered in the American mainstream. Of course, what Ahmadinejad said was that the "Zionist regime in Israel will disappear with the pages of time…" Regime change, change of ideology – nothing about military confrontation." is a lie.
It was even on one of Iran's official news sources, although it has since been removed. Here is the entire original text as it was on the official Iranian site:
Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map
Tehran, Oct 26 – Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the President told a conference in Tehran entitled 'the world without Zionism'.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.
Addressing some 4,000 students gathered in an interior ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come.
"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said.
Regarding the Zionist regime's retreat from the Gaza Strip he said, "we should not settle for a piece of land".
"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.
"Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."…
You can still find links all over the Internet, and there are plenty of other sites that discuss it. Here are just 3:
link to english.aljazeera.net
link to news.bbc.co.uk
Now tell us that al-Jazeera is a Zionist site that cannot be trusted.