They also demagogue who sit and snark

I doubt Jeffrey Goldberg entirely believes what he’s implying in today’s shocked and awed post on very, very scary words from the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces:

Addressing a defense gathering here in Tehran on Sunday, General (Hassan) Firouzabadi said that nations should realize the threats and dangers posed by the Zionist regime of Israel.

He reiterated the Iranian nation and Supreme Leader’s emphasis on the necessity of support for the oppressed Palestinian nation and its causes, and noted, “The Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel.”

Says Goldberg:  “What he probably meant to say was, ‘I would love the opportunity to visit Eilat because I understand the snorkeling is wonderful.'”  The intention seems to be to pre-empt anyone who might consider the statement rationally, since, for a polemicist, the distinction between rationality and rationalization is always suspicious enough.  How dare you pause to think when the Devil Incarnate Is Poised Not Just to Annihilate You, but to Annihilate You Fully?

The translation in question is obviously awkward from “is” to “Israel.”  It reads almost like Sarah Palin wrote it. Whatever the words signify – implacable genocidal determination, a rhetorical flourish, or, in my view much more likely, familiar Islamic revolutionary boilerplate – it ain’t real good English.

It wouldn’t do any harm to find out what the man really said, and how an educated native speaker, as opposed to a smart-alecky pro-Israeli blogger, understands it within its immediate rhetorical context, but Goldberg is not interested, and trusts that, if anyone ever gets around to it – in the unlikely event that someone somewhere decides that there would be some point in doing so – it will be long after the non-event of his blog post has excited the usual round of reflexive reactions and reflexive reactions to reactions.

It’s not a news flash that the establishment of “the Zionist regime” is considered an act of grand larceny by many in the region and the larger world – including, if you read between the lines, many of the most ardent Zionists themselves, who consider it from the perspective of the Jewish interest to have been a justifiable necessity.  Those on the side of the injured parties believe the “arc of history” bends toward a rather different justice than Mr. Goldberg does.  Since they utterly lack the power to achieve their goal via military action, they conjure it up in words, then receive the predictable responses from their counterparts in demagogy on the other side.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

6 comments on “They also demagogue who sit and snark

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Well that is my only quibble, he would say, something like the Zionist state, however that reads in Farsi, but you’re surprised by this, after Rafsanjani in 2001, after Ahmadinejad in 2006,

    • Don’t know who you mean by “you.” I myself am not only not surprised, and I’m not sure how much clearer I can be about that than when I say it’s “not a news flash” and refer to “usual reflexive reactions.” The statement means just about as much as countless similar statements going back to the time when Zionism was a gleam in Herzl’s eye, and an inchoate suspicion on the part of a few Palestinian Arabs… or earlier.

  2. Anyone who thinks the Iranians want to annihilate a region where many of their own holy sites are located is either an idiot or lying. I agree with Miguel that the most likely explanation for this apparent, uhh, discrepancy is that “Israel” almost certainly should be translated as “the state of Israel as currently constituted.” But the annihilation** of THAT entity has been the foreign policy of every U.S. President in the past forty years, which means this interpretation doesn’t paint the Iranians as bloodthirsty maniacs, and that Goldberg therefore can’t entertain it.

    **and subsequent reorganization, okay, but you get the point.

  3. No, Robert they have wanted an end to the regime, the structure that has misgoverned Iran for a third of a century, the US, and French and German firms had initial nuclear programs under the Shah, only the likes of the late Paul Erdman, saw anything wrong with that.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins