Floor Statements
Floor Debate on H. Con. Res. 21, Calling on the United Nations Security Council to Charge Iranian President With Certain Violations Because of His Calls for the Destruction of the State of Israel
Washington, DC,
June 17, 2007
Mr. KUCINICH. I am going to proceed specifically with the comments, if I may. Everything that I have relates to this resolution, my good friend. And I am going to proceed now, and then I will yield again, certainly. I just want to make sure we can continue this.
I want to proceed with quotes from this resolution. I am just going to stay very closely to this resolution because this is what we are debating, a resolution before the House that calls on the Security Council to charge Iranian President Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, something that I obviously would find abhorrent and repugnant if he said that. And I started to do research on this, and I am just calling it to your attention. With respect to the quote that he said that Israel should be wiped off the map, that is what the quote was, I have seen, from translations in the New York Times and the Middle East Research Institute that this speech that Ahmadinejad gave on October 26, 2005, does not call for Israel to be wiped off the map. Now, H. Con. Res. 21 states that he has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. But according to the Middle East Research Institute, it is more correctly translated as ``eliminated from the pages of history.'' And when taken in full context, here is what the quote says: ``This regime that is occupying Qods,'' or Jerusalem, ``must be eliminated from the pages of history.'' He is talking about the regime. Now, H. Con. Resolution 21 accuses President Ahmadinejad of saying that Israel, and these are awful quotes if he said it, it is horrible, that Israel is a ``disgraceful blot on the face of the Islamic world.'' However, the New York Times translates this section of the speech as saying, ``Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.'' Now, I object to anyone's putting the word ``disgraceful'' in connection with Israel. However, he did not say, he wasn't talking about the people of Israel, the nation, he was talking about the regime. Here again is the quote that is included in this resolution: ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.'' Look, I recognize Israel and I am not interested in that kind of condemnation. But H. Con. Res. 21 accuses President Ahmadinejad of declaring that anybody who recognized Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury. However, in two separate translations, it is clear that Ahmadinejad is referring to the Israeli regime. The New York Times translation: ``Anyone who recognizes this regime because of the pressure of the world oppressor, or because of naivete or selfishness, will be eternally disgraced and will burn in the fury of the Islamic nations.'' The Middle East Media Research Institute translation reads: If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power,'' the West, ``and understands that something is wrong, or he is naive, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime, he should know that he will burn in the fire of Islamic Ummah,'' nation ..... So what he is calling for is regime change, according to these translations. According to these translations, he is calling for regime change. He is not calling for the destruction of Israel. Now, I am just going on the basis of a New York Times translation. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KUCINICH. I will yield to my friend. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that it is standard usage in the Government of Iran and in many of the Arab regimes that since they will not say the word ``Israel,'' they refer to Israel as the Zionist entity or the Zionist regime so that when they say the ``Zionist regime,'' they are not necessarily calling for regime change? When they say the ``Zionist regime'' or the ``Zionist entity'' must be abolished, they are usually referring to the country of Israel? Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, to respond to my friend, if that is what he meant, then we have cause for great concern. However, in one of the articles I wanted to submit so that Congress could see it, it says, and I quote, ``What did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi,'' and then they give the quote, ``that passage will mean nothing to most people but one word might ring a bell: `regime.' It is the word `regime' pronounced just like the English word with an extra Ðe-h sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass but the Israeli regime. That is a vastly significant distinction as one cannot wipe a regime off the map.'' Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KUCINICH. I would be glad to have my friend respond and also for Mr. Rothman to respond. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I will respond again. It proves nothing because the fact is that if you are just looking at etymology, it may make sense. But if you look at usage in the Middle East, the Arab and Iranian people who wish the State of Israel eliminated have, since 1947 or 1948, referred to Israel either as the ``Zionist regime'' or the ``Zionist entity.'' And you can look back at the rhetoric of 1967 when they lined up the troops and they said all the Jews will be killed. They talked about the Zionist regime or the Zionist entity being eliminated. They weren't talking about regime change; they were talking about genocide. |